Exploring BME Maternal Poverty: The Financial Lives of Ethnic Minority Mothers in Tyne and Wear

Exploring BME
OXFAM
RESEARCH
REPORT
Maternal Poverty
The financial lives of ethnic
minority mothers in Tyne and
Wear
Chris Warburton Brown for Oxfam GB
January 2011
EMBA
RGOE
The Angelou
Centre
www.oxfam.org.uk
2 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, the author would like to thank the members of the
community research team at the Angelou Centre, Fenham, Newcastle
upon Tyne: Umme Imam, Samira Ghiti, Rumin Hasanee, Barbara Kaur,
Shamshad Iqbal, and Stella Magoye. Without their energy, enthusiasm,
and insight, this report would not have been possible. Others who made a
central contribution to the project were Zoe Smith, Sue Balcomb, and
Sophie Fosker from Oxfam’s UK Poverty Programme. Huge thanks also
go to Oxfam for funding the project.
A number of people read drafts of the report and made invaluable
suggestions: Susie Warburton Brown; Sundari Anitha of the University of
Lincoln; Kirit Patel, Sue Smith and Helen Longworth of Oxfam. Without
their comments the report would be considerably poorer. Professor Moira
Munro and Dr Charlotte Pearson of the University of Glasgow helped the
author think through many of the issues that underpin this report,
including the deprivation scoring methodology it uses.
Finally, to the 30 women who agreed to be interviewed for this project,
thank you for sharing your time, your experience, and your insights so
generously. They have proved invaluable.
About the Angelou Centre

The Angelou Centre is a grassroots black women’s organisation with a clear
vision around supporting and enabling BME women’s economic
independence. The Angelou Centre works on a variety of issues that impact
on women’s ability to become economically independent. These include
caring responsibilities, parenting, domestic violence and childcare. The
Centre delivers advice, training, guidance and enterprise development
support, and networks with service providers to raise awareness of the
barriers black women face to achieving economic inclusion.
About Oxfam
Oxfam works to overcome poverty all over the world. Millions of people
in the UK don’t have enough to live on. Oxfam believes that in a rich
country this is completely unacceptable.
Oxfam works to overcome poverty in the UK in three ways. We develop
projects with people living in poverty to improve their lives and show
how things can change. We raise public awareness of poverty to create
pressure for change. And we work with policy-makers to tackle the causes
of poverty.
Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 3

About the author
Chris Warburton Brown is an anti-poverty activist and consultant. For the
last decade he has lived in one of the most deprived communities in north-
east England, undertaking a wide range of community development and
anti-poverty activities. He is currently a final year PhD student at the
University of Glasgow. His PhD study looks at issues of intra-household
resource allocation in the White British community.

Contents
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 3
Contents.................................................................................................................. 5
Executive summary .............................................................................................. 6
Chapter 1: Background to the study ................................................................ 10
Chapter 2: What we already know ................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: Let’s talk about money.................................................................... 22
Chapter 4: Making ends meet ........................................................................... 31
Chapter 5: His role, her role .............................................................................. 40
Chapter 6: Discussion and recommendations ................................................ 47
References ............................................................................................................ 56
Appendix 1: Survey responses .......................................................................... 59
Appendix 2: Interview schedule ....................................................................... 62

Executive summary
Background to the study
This report has grown out of Oxfam’s commitment to tackling the poverty
of black and minority ethnic (BME) women in the UK. It aims to improve
our understanding of BME mothers’ experiences of poverty, to address the
way in which the poverty of BME mothers is hidden from conventional
data collection, to raise awareness amongst policy-makers and
practitioners of the material circumstances of low-income BME mothers,
and to improve the ways in which poor BME women are supported to
secure greater assets and resources.
The report shines a light into a neglected area: the financial lives of BME
mothers. Census data shows that BME women are over-represented in the
poorest households in the UK, while previous studies have found that
women often bear the greatest burden of material hardship in low-income
households. Using a methodology to measure poverty within the
household, this study opens up the financial arrangements of BME
families and explores how life on a low income impacts on BME mothers.
The study draws on in-depth interviews with 30 women from the Indian,
Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Arab and Black African communities in the UK.
All the women were married with children at home, had a family member
in work, and a relatively low household income ranging from 50 to 85 per
cent of median national household income. All were resident in Tyne and
Wear, England. The interviews were conducted by a team from the
Angelou Centre, a BME women’s project in Newcastle upon Tyne,
between January and April 2010. A survey of 109 other BME women was
then used to check the key issues.
Key findings
1. High levels of material deprivation

Levels of material deprivation in the study households were generally
high, especially for mothers. Women had the poorest access to material
resources, with two out of three mothers experiencing a high level of
material deprivation, but only one in nine children. Child deprivation
levels had a weak connection to household income, suggesting that
children’s needs were supported by parental sacrifice. Poorer mothers
were generally more materially deprived than richer ones, but maternal
deprivation could be high even when the household had a reasonable
income. Almost all of the women interviewed said that money was tight,
and they had developed a range of ways to make their households’
resources go further. This often meant ‘going without’, which had both

physical and psychological consequences for many of the women in the
study. Many reported anxiety and depression.
2. Limited access to money

Many of the women had very limited access to money, and some had none
at all. There were a number of reasons for this. Household incomes were
low and household sizes sometimes large. In one-third of households, the
father rather than the mother was the recipient of Child Benefit and Child
Tax Credit. Half of the sample group was sending remittances to extended
family abroad. Extended family in the UK, particularly in-laws, sometimes
had significant control over household finances. In some cases, male
financial irresponsibility meant that other household members went short.
3. Negative impact of gender roles

Cultural and personal beliefs about the roles of husband and wife had an
important influence on the women’s poverty. The families in the study
generally had a traditional arrangement of gender roles, with the man
earning the money and the woman doing the domestic care. However,
there were some exceptions, with several women doing as much paid
work as their husbands and some men taking a greater share of childcare.
Most of the women interviewed wanted equality with their partner in
financial matters, but few had it. Even where interviewees initially said
there was equality, on further exploration it became clear that the
husbands often had the final say. Three specific areas were commonly the
cause of conflict: the amount of income each partner contributed to the
household, who had control over spending and decision-making, and a
woman’s right to undertake paid work.
4. Barriers to paid work

The women interviewed were keen to undertake paid work. Almost all
said that getting a job, or more hours in an existing job, would be the best
way to improve their household finances. However, BME women face
many barriers to work, including lack of childcare, poor English or weak
numerical skills, low self-confidence, and the lack of availability of jobs.
Some women had been forbidden by their husbands from taking
employment. Those women who did have jobs made an important
contribution to the finances of their household, and often had greater
access to household resources than those without paid work.

5. Economic Violence
In several cases in the study group, the household financial arrangements
were, or previously had been, so unequal as to suggest fundamental
power imbalances which bordered on ‘economic violence’. This does not
just mean unequal access to resources; it describes a situation where a
woman has so little access to money that key aspects of her life pass out of
her own control and into her husband’s, fundamentally curtailing her
freedom. This can include preventing her from getting or keeping a job,
withholding funds, spending family income without her consent, not
letting her know of or have access to household income, or forcing her to
ask for basic necessities.
Recommendations
• Enable community organisations to help BME women gain
employment.
Respected grassroots organisations that can build longterm relationships
with women are in the best position to tackle the barriers to BME women’s
employment, including poor English and weak numerical skills, a lack of
affordable childcare, and low self-confidence. These organisations should
receive increased support, including secure, longterm funding.
• Provide safe spaces for BME women to discuss financial issues.

It is vital to create supportive settings for BME women to explore issues
around household resources, and to get appropriate financial advice.
Trusted community-based organisations are also the obvious venue for
this.
• Involve BME fathers.

BME fathers also need to be engaged in discussions of household
resources, for example, through fathers’ groups or partnership work in
settings targeting men.
• Improve childcare for BME children.

The childcare needs of BME families must be better identified and met.
Sufficient culturally-appropriate provision with trusted providers needs to
be ensured, especially in school holidays.
• Raise awareness of benefits.

There should be further work, tailored to BME women, to maximise the
take-up of child-related benefits in order to boost household incomes.
• Improve mothers’ access to benefits.

Child-related benefits should always be paid into an account only in the
mother’s name or into an account to which she has full access.

• Support BME savings groups.
Credit unions and organisations working with BME women should be
encouraged to set up (and support existing) ‘kitty’ or ‘committee’ saving
systems, where women organise into groups and contribute an agreed
amount of money each week.
• Improve poverty measurements.

National poverty measures need to be improved so that they are able to
capture the poverty of all women and in particular BME women. Such
improvements should lead to discussions of women’s poverty by policy-
makers, in the media, and by the broader public.

Chapter 1: Background to the study
Oxfam’s anti-poverty programme in England aims to develop work to
help ‘ensure that poor women, particularly black and minority ethnic
(BME) women living in poverty, secure greater resources and assets and
are able to exercise leadership in the economic sphere’. In order to achieve
these aims, much greater awareness is needed amongst policy-makers,
researchers, and frontline practitioners of the realities of the material lives
of poor BME women (Oxfam England Country Programme
Implementation Plan 2008-2013, p.6).
One of the greatest triggers of poverty for women is becoming a mother
(Pantazis and Ruspini 2006). Yet policy discourse in the UK is almost
exclusively focused on child poverty, with mothers’ (and fathers’) poverty
being seen as less important or only important in the context of addressing
child poverty (Lister 2006). Maternal poverty is particularly hidden as the
method used by the UK government to measure poverty is based on the
household unit. This approach assumes that ‘all individuals in the
household benefit equally from the combined income of the household’
(DWP 2010, p.1). However, resource use within households often
disadvantages mothers, with the needs of fathers and children taking
precedence. It is therefore essential to look below the household level if
the material circumstances experienced by mothers are to be understood
(Goode et al 1998, Pahl 1989).
‘Individuals and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the
resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions
and amenities which are customary… in the societies in which they belong.’ (Peter
Townsend, quoted in Alcock 1993, p.57)

In brief: Household poverty and material deprivation
A major problem when discussing poverty is finding suitable terminology. The word ‘poverty’
means many different things in different contexts and different countries. The definition
offered by Bryan Perry would seem straightforward: ‘A person or household can be said to
be poor when their resources do not satisfy their needs...’ (102). But how can this be easily
measured? Most governments answer this by setting a minimum household income, which
they believe ensures that all the members of that household can satisfy their needs.
According to the UK government, to be poor a person must live in a household with an
income below 60 per cent of the national median household income. This ‘poverty threshold’
or ‘poverty line’ is roughly £360 a week for a family with two children in 2010. In this report,
the term ‘household poverty’ or ‘poor household’ will be used to describe households whose
income falls below this line.
However, household poverty measures have limited usefulness when assessing whether an
individual’s resources meet their needs. Research has shown that household income and
individual material comfort are only broadly related. Moreover, the poverty line is an arbitrary
one; government doesn’t know whether an income just above the line really is enough to
allow all needs to be met. And a poverty measure based on household income assumes all
members of a household have equal access to its resources, whereas in reality children tend
to have the first claim, followed by the father, and the mother’s needs come last. Poverty
therefore needs to be calculated on an individual basis for each household member.
Material deprivation (i.e. lack of access to certain material goods) is a better indicator of
individual poverty. The term ‘materially deprived’ will be used in this study to describe those
who lack certain things such as a warm house, a hobby, or a little money to spend on
themselves each week. The full list of items used is described in Chapter 3.
The general lack of understanding of mothers’ poverty in the UK is

coupled with an even greater lack of understanding of the experiences and
needs of different groups of BME women (Dyson et al 2009). Data from
the 2001 census reveals that ethnic minority women often have poor
health, low educational achievement, low household incomes, and limited
access to paid employment (Office for National Statistics 2004). In all these
areas, ethnic minority women fare worse than both ethnic minority men
and White British women. The combination of gender inequality, racial
inequality, and low income has serious detrimental consequences for the
lives of poor BME women. This needs to be built into policy and practice
in order to improve their livelihoods and wellbeing.
‘It is estimated, on the basis of the Households Below Average Income data, that while 20 per
cent of white women are living in poverty, the figure for Black women is 38 per cent, and for
Pakistani and Bangladeshi women 64 per cent.’ (Women’s Budget Group 2005, p.2-3)
Accurate evidence of the realities of BME mothers’ lives is needed in order

to understand the realities of their material situation and to ensure that
policy-making better reflects and meets the needs of these women.
Currently this evidence is largely lacking. This report seeks to fill that gap.
Getting the issue of BME maternal poverty onto the policy agenda is an
important step in the ongoing fight for BME women’s equality.

‘More thorough analysis of the different and complex routes into poverty is needed to capture
the substantial variation of poverty for ethnic minority women.’ (Fawcett Society 2008, p.1)
Oxfam’s maternal poverty project

In the summer of 2009, Oxfam’s anti-poverty programme in England
created a project that would address the lack of evidence around BME
maternal poverty, ultimately leading to the production of this report. The
project had four main aims:
• To improve understanding of BME mothers’ experiences of
poverty.
• To address the way the poverty of BME mothers is hidden from
conventional data collection and to find ways to remedy this.
• To raise awareness amongst policy-makers and practitioners of the
material circumstances of low-income BME mothers.
• To improve the ways in which poor BME women are supported to
secure greater assets and resources.
Oxfam identified the Angelou Centre, a project based in the West End of
Newcastle upon Tyne, as its research partner. The Angelou Centre is a
voluntary organisation with a remit to deliver training, and provide
advice and guidance around training and employment, to BME women.
During the 15 years since its inception, the Centre has enabled many
hundreds of women to access training and employment. Central to this
has been the provision of childcare services and support from multilingual
staff and volunteers. As well as its work with individuals, the Centre also
works in partnership with other voluntary and statutory organisations
across the North-East region through a range of projects and joint work
aimed at improving policy and practice.
Six members of staff at the Angelou Centre were trained in community
research techniques as part of this project. They worked with the report’s
author to design the research methodology and the interview questions.
The interviews
In the first stage of the research the research team interviewed 30 women
in depth. The interviewees were from five ethnic groups: Indian,
Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Arab, and Black African. All the women were
married or living as married, with children at home and a family member
in work. They were all from households with relatively low incomes,
ranging from £250 to £600 (50 to 85 per cent of median national household
income). The majority of those interviewed lived in the West End of
Newcastle upon Tyne, with some from South Tyneside and Sunderland.

In the second stage of the research, a group of a 109 Angelou Centre users
were asked to comment on the interview findings, and to identify which
they thought were the most important. The membership of this group was
not controlled, but most of the women in it shared the characteristics of
the group who were interviewed in depth. The findings from this survey
are presented in Chapter 6 and given in full in Appendix 1.
Differences between ethnic groups

There are of course cultural, linguistic, and religious differences between
the five ethnic groups in this study. Their ethnicities and countries of
origin are very different. Some were born in the UK and some were born
abroad. However, few of these differences emerged as significant when
undertaking the research. Looking at the interview transcripts, it was
generally difficult to know which ethnic group interviewees belonged to.
There seemed to be a very strong shared body of experience between the
women in the study group, regardless of their ethnic origin. In the few
places in the study where clear ethnic differences did emerge, these are
noted, but generally all the women are treated homogenously. What links
them as poor BME women emerged as much more significant than what
separates them. It is hoped that future studies will be able to deal with
individual ethnic groups and may shed more light on significant
differences between groups.

Key points from Chapter 1
• The aims of this study are:
1. To improve understanding of BME mothers’ experiences of
poverty.
2. To address the way the poverty of BME mothers is hidden from
conventional data collection and to find ways to remedy this.
3. To raise awareness amongst policy-makers and practitioners of
the material circumstances of low-income BME mothers.
4. To improve the ways in which poor BME women are supported
to secure greater assets and resources.
• Becoming a mother is a trigger for poverty, but maternal poverty is
hidden in the UK because poverty is measured at the household
level rather than for individuals.
• The study is based on interviews with 30 BME women from the
West End of Newcastle upon Tyne, South Tyneside and
Sunderland.
• The interviewees were from five ethnic groups: Indian,
Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Arab and Black African. Some were born in
the UK and some overseas.
• All the interviewees were married mothers, and they or their
husbands were in work.
• All the interviewees were from households with low incomes,
ranging from £250 to £600 weekly (50 to 85 per cent of median
national household income).
• The interviews were conducted by a team of community
researchers through the Angelou Centre, a project for BME women.
• Although there were some differences between the ethnic groups in
the study, there were far more similarities and the report focuses on
these.

Chapter 2: What we already know
The 2001 and 2006 censuses provide a wealth of statistical data for BME
women. A number of qualitative studies also shed light on key elements of
their lives. These need to be reviewed before any new research is
presented, and that is the purpose of this chapter.
It is clear that BME women’s experience is different from both that of
white women and of BME men (Warren 2006, Barn 2008). ‘Race’ is not on
its own a sufficient explanation for the poor economic position of BME
women, and issues of gender must also be considered (Barn 2008). The
category of ‘woman’ is as much a source of discrimination as the category
‘BME’. There is also a danger that focusing solely on ethnicity as a
category of analysis blinds us to the similarities that all women living in
poverty share. Likewise, there is a danger that focusing solely on women
blinds us to the importance of ethnicity. Socio-economic position has a
very strong influence in shaping BME women’s lives. Thus the women in
this study are not just BME women, but are poor BME women, and this
sets their life experience apart from other groups of BME women. The
women in this study stand at the intersection of ethnicity, gender and
poverty, and each of those three factors has shaped their lives. It is often
impossible to separate these tangled strands.
‘The systematically inferior position of women inside and outside the household in many
societies points to the necessity of treating gender as a force of its own… To concentrate on
family poverty irrespective of gender can be misleading in terms of both causation and
consequences.’ (Sen 1990, p.124)
What we already know about BME women as a whole

The 2001 census collected substantial information on BME women (Office
for National Statistics 2004). At that time, 7.9 per cent of the total
population of the UK were from BME groups. More than half of the
Pakistani population, and just under half of the Bangladeshi population,
were born in the UK. BME women were more likely to be married than
White British women. Motherhood played a major part in their lives, with
relatively large families and over half of all ethnic minority households
containing dependent children, twice the rate for White British
households. The women and their male partners tended to work in certain
sectors of the economy such as catering, food processing, and textile
working. Although their actual experience of violent crime differed little
from that of the population as a whole, they were much more likely to fear
it. They were much less likely to be providing long-term unpaid care,
suggesting that BME women’s care responsibilities were much more
focused on children than on elders. They were concentrated in certain
parts of the country: London, the West Midlands, and West Yorkshire.

Ethnic minority households tended to cluster together in certain
neighbourhoods, often post-industrial districts characterised by the run-
down older housing which was offered to first generation immigrants.
A major study published by the Equal Opportunities Commission in 2007,
Moving On Up?, provided a valuable overview of the employment
situation and experiences of BME women in Britain. Despite a pattern of
rising educational achievement and aspirations among BME women
overall, they had low rates of employment and were poorly represented in
senior jobs. Moreover, the negative impact of these employment gaps is
rising as the number of BME women reaching working age grows. The
report also points out that as well as disadvantaging individuals this has
wide-ranging implications for the national economy and for community
cohesion. Four sets of external barriers to the employment participation
and progression of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Black Caribbean women
were identified: racism, sexism, and prejudice; outdated workplace
cultures and systems; lack of support for working parents and carers; and
the invisibility of BME women’s issues within policy and service delivery.
‘We must address the widespread, subtle, but nonetheless powerful barriers which are
preventing many ethnic minority women who do want to work from joining a workplace or
thriving in it.’ (Equal Opportunities Commission 2007, p.4)
What we already know about Bangladeshi women

In 2001 there were 300,000 people of Bangladeshi origin in the UK.
Bangladeshi women are one of the country’s most deprived groups. Half
live in household poverty, three times the rate for the population as a
whole. Almost half have no qualifications. More than three-quarters are
economically inactive. Their levels of disability and long-term limiting
illness are high. Bangladeshi men are three times as likely to be
unemployed as White British men and are heavily concentrated in poorly-
paid work in hotels and catering. Their families are large, with an average
household size of 4.5, twice the national average. Barriers of language and
culture often leave Bangladeshi women isolated, with weak support
networks, especially for those born in Bangladesh. There is some evidence
of high levels of domestic abuse and poor mental health. Gender divisions
are very marked, with conservative gender roles and significant
differences in statistics for Bangladeshi women and men (Office for
National Statistics 2004).

‘Socio-economic status represents the most potent factor in adversely affecting the health
status of Bangladeshi women.’(Barn and Sidhu 2005, p.11)
‘Bangladeshi mothers are the most socially excluded parents.’ (Dyson et al 2009, p.362)
What we already know about Pakistani women

In 2001 there were 750,000 people of Pakistani origin in the UK. Half were
in household income poverty (national average 15 per cent). Pakistanis in
the UK share many characteristics with Bangladeshis in the UK: low
incomes, high male unemployment, and female economic inactivity, low
levels of qualifications, and high levels of long-term ill-health. Pakistani
men often work in taxi driving and women in food processing. Gender
roles are strong, with gender differences clearly reflected in statistics
(Office for National Statistics 2004).
What we already know about Black African women

In 2001 there were around half a million Black Africans in the UK, and
with immigration from countries such as the Congo and Zimbabwe,
numbers have since increased. Black Africans are nearly twice as likely to
live in poverty as the national average. Both Black African women and
Black African men are three times more likely to be unemployed than the
rest of the population. Levels of economic inactivity are high. Those who
do work are concentrated in the public sector. However, they often have
good educational qualifications and low levels of long term ill-health and
disability. Their average household size is only a little bigger than the
national average, but their households are significantly more likely to
contain children. Gender differences are less marked than for other ethnic
communities (Office for National Statistics 2004).
What we already know about Indian women

In 2001 there were a million people of Indian origin in the UK. Indian
women differ from the other ethnic groups in this study because of their
relative economic success. Average household incomes are well above the
national average. Indian women are much more likely to be in work than
any other ethnic minority, as are Indian men. They are significantly
represented in professional jobs, especially in medicine. However, levels
of unemployment, economic inactivity and household poverty are all
above the national average. The Indian community is a very diverse one,
with many prosperous families and many poor ones. As a result, low-
income Indian women are likely to have more in common with
Bangladeshi and Pakistani women than with Indian women in wealthier
households (Office for National Statistics 2004).

What we already know about Arab women
Very little research has been done on Arab women in the UK. Although
one of the oldest ethnic minority groups in the country, numbers were
historically small. In the 2001 census, Arabs were simply classed under
‘other ethnic minority’. As a result, no statistical information is available
for this group. Since 2001 numbers have risen as a result of the war in Iraq.
Previous studies have suggested that Arab society is especially patriarchal
(Joseph 1996).
What we already know about BME women in Newcastle upon

Tyne
According to the 2001 census (Angelou Centre 2009), almost seven per
cent of the total population of Newcastle was from BME groups. Of the
259,536 people then living in Newcastle 3,098 (1.2 per cent) were of Indian
origin, 4,842 (1.9 per cent) were of Pakistani origin, 2,607 (1.0 per cent)
were of Bangladeshi origin, 959 (0.4 per cent) were Black or Black British
and 3,231 (1.2 per cent) were of Chinese origin. The census does not break
these numbers down further into British-born people and migrants. Whilst
there have been considerable changes in the ethnic composition of the
population nationally and locally since 2001, the three largest non-white
groups remain Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese. However, the number of
Black Africans in the city has increased substantially since 2001, due to
government dispersal policies for asylum seekers. Within the city, most of
the BME population is concentrated in the inner West End where the
Angelou Centre is based.
There are considerable variations between the employment experiences of
different ethnic groups in Newcastle. Recent figures show that 34 per cent
of Indian women are employed full time, compared with only five per
cent of Bangladeshi women. The comparable figure for the city as a whole
is 37 per cent of women (O’Donnell et al 2008). In Newcastle, 28 per cent of
Indian women (and 38 per cent of Indian men) are in professional jobs,
compared with 11 per cent of Bangladeshi women (and nine per cent of
Bangladeshi men) and with 13 per cent of White British women (and 16
per cent of White British men) (Buckner et al 2003). Bangladeshi, Pakistani,
and Chinese men and women who work are heavily concentrated in the
wholesale, retail, restaurant and hotel sectors, while those of Indian
background are more concentrated in health and social work (Stiell and
Tang 2006). Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are substantially less likely
than other women to be employed as managers and professionals. A
research project focusing on the West End of the city found that a much
higher proportion of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women were looking after
a home and family full time than other local women, reflecting national
trends (Stiell and Tang 2006).

What we already know about women’s poverty
Because the UK government measures poverty at the household rather
than the individual level, we cannot estimate the actual material
circumstances of the women within those households. Nevertheless, even
measures of poverty based on household income show that more women
live in poor households than men. There are five key reasons for this: a
significant gender pay gap; more women working part time to fit around
their caring responsibilities; women receiving lower pensions than men;
the concentration of poor women in areas of high unemployment; and
lone parenthood (Bradshaw et al 2003).
‘Poverty in Britain is highly gendered. And yet, the gender dimension in the government’s
anti-poverty strategy is largely implicit rather than explicit and indirect rather than direct…
Tackling gender inequality in poverty does not appear to be an explicit objective or outcome
to be achieved’. (Bradshaw et al 2003, p.iii).
Detailed qualitative studies which have looked inside the household have
consistently concluded that women are more materially deprived than
men in the same family (Pahl 1983, 1988, and 1999, Goode et al 1997, Land
1983, Charles and Kerr 1987, Glenndinning and Millar 1989, Laurie and
Gershuny 2000, Cantillon and Nolan 1998). Neither resources nor
domestic work are shared equally between men and women. Men often
consume more, or higher-quality, items bought from the common
‘housekeeping’ purse. Women may reduce the household heating during
the day, may scrimp on their personal food consumption, and may go
longer without new clothes than their male partners. Usage of the car, in
theory a shared household resource, generally favours men. Spending on
leisure also favours men: whereas typical leisure activities for fathers
involve expense and activity outside the home, mothers’ traditional
‘leisure’ activities are done at home alongside babysitting or involve a
degree of self-provisioning (for example knitting or cooking). Women are
usually the financial managers in low-income households, and the need to
make ends meet when money is very tight often leads to stress, anxiety,
guilt and increased levels of mental ill health.
Such studies have exposed three factors which are invisible in household
level surveys: the often unfair distribution of income within the household
itself; women’s role as the money managers in poorer households; and the
widespread willingness of mothers to forego their own material needs in
favour of their children. These factors are rooted in unequal earning
power and unequal power relationships.

‘Most studies of poverty have focused on the financial circumstances of families or
household units... The focus is therefore generally on the ability of men to provide, through
waged labour or welfare, for women and other dependents’. (Glendinning and Millar 1987,
p.3-4)
It is not being suggested that men in economically disadvantaged

households have an easy time. Resources are limited for them too and
they commonly make many sacrifices, especially for their children. They
too suffer stress, anxiety and guilt. Nor is it being suggested that the
majority of low-income men deliberately and overtly bend access to
household resources in their own favour, although of course this does
happen. Life is often hard for all members of low-income households.
Nevertheless, previous research does strongly suggest that mothers carry
the greatest burden of material hardship.
‘In order to properly assess the likelihood and severity of ethnic minority women’s poverty, it
is essential to understand intra-household dynamics and people’s real situations.’ (Fawcett
Society 2009, p.9)

• Many statistical and qualitative studies already shed light on life for
economically disadvantaged BME women.
• The economically disadvantaged BME women in this study have
unique life experience, different to that of white women, BME men,
and richer BME women. The interviewees stand at the intersection
of ethnicity, gender, and poverty.
• Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are some of the most deprived in
the country, with very low levels of household income, low
qualifications, high unemployment and economic inactivity, and
poor mental and physical health. They generally have large
households.
• BME African women have low levels of household income and
high unemployment and economic inactivity. However, their
qualifications and health are around the national average.
• Indian women are relatively economically successful. However,
levels of unemployment, economic inactivity and household
poverty are still above the national average. The Indian community
is a diverse one, with many prosperous families and many poor
ones.
• Little is known about the situation of Arab women in the UK.
• Current governmental measures of poverty obscure women’s
material circumstances behind those of their household, but it is
clear that women are generally poorer than men.
• Studies have consistently shown that women are more materially
deprived than men in the same family and have less access to the
material resources of the household, including heating, food,
leisure time, and transport.

Chapter 3: Let’s talk about money
This chapter considers the financial and material circumstances of the
women interviewed, their household composition, and their work
arrangements. It also explains the research methodology in more depth.
The interviews
The research involved conducting 30 in-depth interviews with women
from five ethnic minority groups: Bangladeshi (six interviewees), Pakistani
(eight), Arab (six), Black African (five) and Indian (five). These ethnic
groups are those which predominantly use the Angelou Centre. The
women interviewed were all mothers with children under 18, were
married or living as married, and with a household income below £30,000
a year. Because families reliant on benefits have been better researched in
previous studies, all the women interviewed were required to have at least
one family member in paid work.
The women interviewed were all known to the Angelou Centre and had
an existing relationship of trust with its staff. This relationship of trust
meant that women agreed to be interviewed who would normally be
outside the reach of research of this kind. Because they knew and trusted
the interviewer, they were prepared to speak openly and frankly about the
sensitive topic of family finance, generating unique and original insights.
Nevertheless, the topic was so sensitive that a number of women
approached declined to take part, and a number of others had to seek
permission from their husbands before agreeing to be interviewed.
Those interviewed were assured of complete confidentiality and this was
crucial in their agreeing to take part. The names and personal details of all
the women mentioned in this report have therefore been changed. The
large majority were interviewed in the Centre itself. A number were
interviewed in their first language, and the interviewer then translated the
interview. Six members of the Angelou Centre staff, all themselves BME
women and mothers, conducted and transcribed the interviews. All the
interviewees were asked exactly the same questions. Depending on the
depth of answers given, interviews lasted between 40 and 90 minutes. The
analysis of the interviews was carried out by the interviewing team,
facilitated by the report’s author and Oxfam staff. The interview questions
are given in full in Appendix 2.

The interview structure
The interviews themselves consisted of three parts. These were:
• A conventional assessment of household income, based on earnings
and benefits, to establish household level poverty, work
circumstances, and other income sources;
• An assessment of material deprivation. Questions were developed
which enabled poverty to be measured separately for different
members of the same household, for the interviewee herself, her
family as a whole and for her children;
• An in-depth qualitative interview. Questions explored gender
relations, decision-making, control and management of the family
finances, strategies for making ends meet, and the interviewee’s
personal beliefs about gender roles.
What about the husbands?

When the project was designed, it was decided not to interview husbands.
Previous research has shown that interviewing both spouses together has
a strong effect on the answers given, while interviewing them separately
creates major logistical difficulties, in particular around getting joint
consent (Cantillon and Newman 2005). It was also considered very
important to preserve the confidentiality of the women interviewed;
women needed to feel safe to speak freely, including about their
husbands. For many of the women in the study, agreeing to be
interviewed required considerable courage and took them outside their
comfort zone; interviews were often based on a long-term relationship of
trust with the interviewer. For all these reasons it was felt inappropriate to
involve husbands. However, a future study could use the same
methodology but focus on husbands, perhaps through a men’s centre or
other initiatives targeting men such as a sports group.
Household composition
All of the households contained a husband and wife couple plus one or
more dependent children. Five also contained in-laws or adult children
who were not included in the study. Family size was large, with an
average of 2.7 children. This fits with the general pattern of ethnic
minority families in the UK. Some households were facing serious over-
crowding: for example, one family with three children were sharing a
three-bedroomed house with the father’s elderly parents. All but one of
the couples were married, and none had re-partnered or re-married, with
all of the children being biologically related to both parents. This is
unusual in modern Britain, where, for example, three in ten parents are co-

habiting (ESRC 2004), and is indicative of traditional family values in the
study group.
Household income
All of the households in the study had someone in paid work: in fifteen
households only the husband was employed; in twelve households both
partners; and in three households only the woman. Five interviewees did
not know how much their husbands were earning, making analysis of
their household income impossible. For the remaining 25 households,
incomes varied from 51 per cent to 84 per cent of the household median
(£215 to £360 a week after equivalisation). Six households in the study
group were in income poverty; in every case this was due to having fewer
than 30 hours of paid work a week.
In brief: Assessing household income

Household income was calculated in this study using the methodology used by the UK
government. All income from paid work after deduction of income tax and national insurance
is counted, plus benefits (including Child Benefit) and tax credits. Council Tax is taken off but
no other housing costs are considered. The figure is adjusted (‘equivalised’) to take account
of family size, so that all families are directly comparable. The total weekly income can then
be expressed as a figure in £s or as a percentage of the national median household income.
The national median household income for 2009/10 is expected to be around £424.
Example: Household A has one earner, who earns £370 a week, or £293 after tax and NI are
deducted. They get £117 tax credit and £33 Child Benefit for their two children. Council Tax
is £19 a week. Household income is therefore £293+£117+£33-£19=£424. This is
equivalised to allow for the household size (two adults and two children) to £303, or 71 per
cent of median household income. A full description of the method used appears in
Households Below Average Income Appendix 2 (DWP 2010).
Paid work made up between 30 and 90 per cent of household income, with
an average of just over half. Two-thirds of the households derived the
majority of their income from paid work. Husbands earned three-quarters
of all wages earned. Male paid work was predominantly full time, and
female paid work almost all part-time. Earnings from paid work were low,
averaging £222 a week for men and £145 for women. Where both spouses
undertook paid work, husbands’ weekly earnings were, on average,
double those of wives’. However, women’s earnings made an important
contribution to their household income; in six dual earner families the
earnings of the female partner were keeping the household out of income
poverty.
The households in the study group were highly dependent on state
transfers through tax credits and Child Benefit. On average, state transfers
made up almost half of household incomes. Nine households derived
more than half of their income from state transfers. Fifteen of the 25
households were kept out of household poverty solely by tax credits.

In brief: Child Benefit and Tax Credits
All families with children are entitled to receive Child Benefit weekly. The rate is £20 for the
first child and £13.20 for each subsequent child.
Tax credits are in two forms, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit. Families with children
get Child Tax Credit – a basic lump sum (the family element), plus an additional amount for
each child. Working Tax Credit is paid to those who work more than 16 hours a week, with
an additional element for working more than 30 hours. Tax credits are means tested: the
higher the household earnings, the less tax credit is paid. Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit
are supposed to be paid to the main carer of the children, usually the mother.
Material deprivation
All 30 households in the study group provided information which enabled
material deprivation scores to be calculated (see box below). Because the
methodology used in this study is a new one it is difficult to estimate just
what constitutes an unusually low or high level of deprivation. However,
levels of deprivation across the study group do seem remarkably high.

In brief: Assessing material deprivation
The material deprivation measure used here is an adaptation of the UK government’s
measure (Willets 2005, DWP 2010, p.197). Fifteen items have been selected as indicators of
deprivation; they are not prescriptive measures. Five items were selected to measure the
deprivation of the mother, five for the family and five for the children. The items chosen were:
For the mother: an annual holiday, friends round for a meal monthly, a little money to spend
on herself weekly, a hobby, two pairs of all-weather shoes.
For the family: home decently decorated, household contents insurance, saving £10 a
month, ability to replace broken electrical items, a warm home.
For the children: an annual holiday, sports equipment or bicycle, space to play outdoors
safely, a hobby, friends round for a snack fortnightly.
For each item, the interviewee could answer ‘I have this’ ‘I would like to have this but cannot
afford it’ or ‘I do not want this’, giving a score of zero (have this/do not want this) or one
(cannot afford this) for each item. Thus three scores from zero to five were generated; one
for the mother, one for the family and one for the children. By totalling these scores, a fourth
score, zero to 15, was created for the household as whole.
Example: In a household where the mother lacked an annual holiday and two pairs of all-
weather shoes, where the house had no contents insurance and where the children had no
safe place to play outside and no hobbies, the mother would have a deprivation score of two,
the family one and the mother would have a deprivation score of two, the family one and the
children two, giving a household deprivation score of five.

Household material deprivation scores ranged from zero (lowest) to 11
(highest), with ten households scoring seven or more. The average score
was five. These scores were underpinned by high deprivation scores for
mothers, averaging 2.4. Seventeen women in the study group had a
deprivation score of three or more, with only six having a score of zero or
one. Family deprivation and child deprivation were much lower,
averaging 1.1 for the family and 1.5 for the children. These figures strongly
suggest that the mothers in the study group have less access to material
resources than other members of the household. Material deprivation
scores of three or more are suggestive of considerable hardship and this
was borne out in the in-depth interviews (see box, Anisa’s story).
Anisa’s story: Barely managing

Both Anisa and her husband were born in Pakistan and have been in the UK since they
married two decades ago. They have three teenage children, one of whom is disabled.
Anisa’s was the most materially deprived household in the study group, despite having a
reasonable income from her husband’s work and Disability Living Allowance. The mortgage
is high and her daughter’s disability has many financial implications. The family does not
have enough money to manage comfortably, and are behind with payments for bills. Anisa
uses credit cards for Christmas and Eid. She manages the money day-to-day, but her
husband oversees the budget and tells her monthly how much there is. She has to be very
careful and cut back on herself. Her husband has overall control and she finds this difficult,
she is always worrying about money. She finds the need to visit their family in Pakistan very
stressful financially. Anisa found talking about her financial situation very difficult.
Linking household income and material deprivation

The assumptions made in household-level studies would suggest a clear
connection between household income and the material deprivation levels
of the members of that household. Low household income should result in
high levels of material deprivation, and vice versa. In the study group
there was indeed a broad connection between the two. Table 1 compares
income and material deprivation levels for the 25 households in the
sample for whom all data is available.

Table 1: Comparison of household incomes and material
deprivation levels (the higher the score the greater the
deprivation)
Quintile Number of Average Average Average Average
(% of households household mother family child
household deprivation deprivation deprivation deprivation
median
income)
Top 5 1.8 0.8 0.2 0.8

(77-84%)
Second 5 7 2.8 1.6 2.4

(72-76%)
Third 5 3 2 0.2 0.8

(66-71%)
Fourth 5 6.6 2.8 2 1.8

(60-65%)
Bottom 5 6.8 3.4 1.6 1.8

(50-59%)
Whole 25 5 2.4 1.1 1.5

The table shows that income makes a clear impact on all four material
deprivation scores for the top quintile and the bottom two quintiles.
However, for the second and third quintile results are much more
ambiguous, and for them no clear connection between income and
deprivation emerges.
The rise in the deprivation of mothers as income falls is clearly shown in
the table, and suggests that low income has a serious impact on maternal
material wellbeing. However at all income levels there were mothers with
very high deprivation scores; even in the top quintile of the household
income spread one woman scored four. Higher household income is
therefore no guarantee of lower deprivation for mothers, undermining
attempts to calculate women’s poverty levels based on household income.
Child deprivation was the least affected by falling income. Moreover, in 27
of the 30 households, children had a deprivation score of two or below.
This suggests that children are largely protected by the sacrifices of other
members of the household; clearly mothers, and quite possibly fathers as
well, although this study does not explore that.
Overall, while households with higher incomes do generally have lower
levels of material deprivation, it is not absent even in the top quintile of
incomes. Thus the assumption that income of a certain level, whether it be
60 or 70 per cent of the national median, guarantees enough resources for
all household members is shown to be flawed.

The material deprivation figures also show it is extremely difficult to meet
all material needs at an income level below 65 per cent of national median;
none of the households in the study group could do so. It is, however,
possible for some households to meet all material needs at an income level
above that, at least on this range of indicators. This raises the question:
what sets apart those households who can meet all material needs at a
certain income level from those who fail to do so? This question will be
explored further in Chapter 6.
Interviewees who didn’t know their husband’s income

In five cases, the husband’s income was kept hidden from the interviewee.
In two cases, this was because the husbands took complete control of the
family finances. In two others, it was because the husband paid the
mortgage and bills and then gave his wife a regular housekeeping
allowance. In one case, it was because the husband made no contribution
to the household finances at all (see box below, Akhtar’s story).
Deprivation levels in this group of households were above the average. In
all five cases it is clear that the fact that the wife did not know her
husband’s earnings was indicative of his dominance in the household and
control over household resources.
Akhtar’s story: Managing on her own

Akhtar was born in the UK, of Bangladeshi origin. She has three small children. She works
full time for a low wage. Her husband is self-employed but won’t tell her how much he earns.
She has to pay all the bills from her wages; she handles all the finances. She has tried really
hard to get her husband to contribute financially but he won’t; he only goes to work when he
wants money for himself. She doesn’t know what he does with his money, although he sends
some to Bangladesh. This is very stressful for her: she compensates by over-spending on
herself when she feels low. They argue a lot about money. She feels that women always get
blamed when money is short, and that is not fair; she wants something much more equal.
I do most of the handling of the money and I buy everything and do everything myself. And I
don’t want this, but no matter what I do it ends up being the same way of life. Because I
bought the house we live in before he came to England he says that I am responsible for
paying the mortgage.
Differences between ethnic groups

As the numbers of women from each ethnic group were small, any
differences should not be given too much weight. However, there were
some clear difference between the incomes and material deprivation of the
different ethnic groups. These are shown in Table 2, below.

Table 2: Household incomes and deprivation scores by ethnic
group
Ethnicity No. Average Average Average Average Average
household household mother family child
income (% of deprivation deprivation deprivation deprivation
national
median)
Bangladeshi 6 73% 3.5 1.3 1 1.2
Pakistani 8 64% 4.8 2.4 1 1.4
African 5 70% 6.2 2.6 1.6 2
Arab 6 65% 5.2 3.2 0.7 1.3
Indian 5 70% 7 3 2 2
Whole group 30 68% 5.3 2.5 1.2 1.5

Rather surprisingly, the table shows that Indian households had the
greatest material deprivation and Pakistani and Bangladeshi households
the least. In this study group, mothers were least deprived in Bangladeshi
households and most deprived in Indian and Arab households. In
Bangladeshi and African households deprivation was spread fairly evenly,
whereas Arab mothers were significantly more deprived than both their
family and their children.

• The interviews involved three sections: a conventional assessment
of household income, an assessment of material deprivation, and an
in-depth qualitative interview.
• Husbands were not interviewed as part of the study.
• Households in the study group were generally large, averaging 2.8
children.
• Household incomes varied from 51 to 84 per cent of the household
median (£215 to £360 a week after equivalisation).
• Six households in the study group were in income poverty.
• In 15 households only the husband was employed, in 12
households both partners, and in three households only the
woman.
• For the average household in the study, just over half of income
derived from paid work, and the remainder from state transfers in
the form of Child Benefit and tax credits.
• Where women did paid work, their earnings were important, often
keeping the household out of income poverty.
• Levels of material deprivation were generally high, especially for
mothers. Maternal deprivation could be high even when the
household had a reasonable income.
• Five interviewees did not know their husbands’ income, indicative
of strong male financial control.
• Child deprivation levels had a weak connection to household
income, suggesting children’s needs were protected by parental
sacrifice.

Chapter 4: Making ends meet
This chapter explores the ways in which the households in the study
organise their finances: who is in charge of what, what strategies are used
to make money stretch, what happens when money is short, and the role
of extended family in the UK and abroad.
Who’s in charge?
That a woman should have a say in the financial affairs of her household
is a crucial element of gender equality. Within the study group there was a
full spectrum of female financial power, from the woman having no say at
all to having almost complete control.
At one end of this spectrum were six households where the woman had
almost no access to money. This was usually in families where the
husband had been in the UK longer than his wife, and the woman justified
it by saying he ‘knows the system here better than me’. My husband left for
Bangladesh for two weeks. Paying the bills I did not know what to do, I found it
was very hard. I was stressed, my husband said he could not leave me again.
When we go out shopping he does everything that we need, buying food and
groceries and putting them away (Parveen, Bangladeshi). It was clear,
however, that in these situations there was little attempt to prepare the
woman for taking more responsibility. In one household, though, the
woman was running a slow campaign to assert her independence (see box
below, Fullara’s story). This group of households generally had high
deprivation scores in all areas. These households were classified as having
‘full male control’.
Fullara’s story: Finding her own feet

Fullara was born in Pakistan, and came to the UK when she got married. She has two young
children. Her husband believes she does not understand the system here and so he controls
all the money, including the Tax Credits and Child Benefit. She doesn’t know what he earns.
She doesn’t like to argue and accepts what he says. He is very much in charge. However,
when her husband discouraged her from opening a bank account, she went ahead anyway,
opening accounts for her children as well. She is pleased with this achievement and now
wants to learn to drive. She is now looking for a job, but hasn’t told him; he doesn’t think she
will be able to get one. She attends the Angelou Centre to improve her English and learn
new skills and hobbies.
A nice job would make things better – part time when the children are at school. It does not
matter what type, cleaning or whatever. Major items would still be my husband’s
responsibility of course. But perhaps one day if I had a job, and he lost his, I would take on
the responsibilities.

In eight couples, the wife received only a house-keeping or shopping
allowance, while the husband paid all the bills and controlled any
discretionary spending. I have an allowance of £250 a month to buy food. All
our other finances are all handled by my husband. He pays the rent, pays the bills,
buys things for the home. I will ask for something and if he is okay with it, I can
buy (Chedza, African). Such systems are reminiscent of the house-keeping
system popular in the UK in the 1950s, but now rarely seen in White
British families (Pahl 1999, Nickenig 2005). This conservative attitude to
money management seemed to be rooted in cultural attitudes to gender
roles: In our culture it is a sign of dignity and respect and a man would feel
inferior if he doesn’t manage his family’s finances. My role is to support my
husband (Salma, Arab). In our culture, a man should pay the bills (Patience,
African). Households in this group were described as ‘mostly male
controlled’.
However, a majority of households in the study had a greater degree of
sharing in financial matters, with 11 women stating that their relationship
was one of financial equality. Typically, such couples had a joint account
to which they both had access. In most cases, the man was responsible for
the mortgage or rent, bills and larger household items while the women
took care of the day-to-day shopping. Both of us have same responsibilities,
the same level. If I am busy and need shopping, he does it, if I can’t pick my
daughter up, he does. I am the right hand, he is the left hand – both work together
and share responsibilities (Zobediah, Arab).
Answers to other interview questions, however, often cast doubt on the
actual degree of equality in the marriage. While some of these couples did
indeed seem to have genuine equality, in others the final decision-making
power still remained with the husband. Sandeep, for instance, began by
claiming equality: Money comes into our joint account, he may do the
calculations but we both make decisions about spending. But later she admitted:
When he wants to buy something, even if we say no he still goes ahead.
(Sandeep, Indian). In other cases, men had the final say over spending
while women had the much more stressful job of making ends meet. For
example, Saira’s statement of equality early in the interview contrasted
with her later comments: (Qu4) We both as a couple share the money and
discuss what the money should be used for. We both decided that. (Qu16) I think
we both are careful but I am most, I do feel bad for being the more careful one than
the husband. I feel no-one supports me, I feel alone. I feel depressed and stressed, I
forget things (Saira, Bangladeshi). And some women only had a say in
financial matters because they earned themselves: If I wasn’t working I
wouldn’t have claim on the money. That’s why I never gave my husband the
opportunity to control my wage. It is my choice to spend on the children and the
household (Wafa, Arab). Despite these reservations, it was decided to
describe these households as having ‘near equal control’.

Finally, there was a group of five women who seemed to have the
dominant say in their household’s money management. In these
households, men handed their wages or benefits directly to the women to
control. Me, I am an independent woman, in my own country I ran a business
since I was 18, relied on myself. I do not think when I grow up someone will
control me – no – thank God I met someone who does not have this attitude. If not
we would not have got together (Gisela, African). However, for three of these
women, taking financial control was a response to a family crisis: for one
woman, her husband’s alcoholism (see box below, Bibi’s story); for
another, her husband becoming unemployed; and for a third, his refusal to
contribute financially (see box, Akhtar’s story, page 27). In these cases,
being in charge of the family budget had serious costs for the woman and
was effectively a last resort. All three women said they wished it was
different. Households in this group were classed as having ‘full female
control’.
Bibi’s story: Living with a drug user

Bibi and her husband were both born in Bangladesh but have lived in the UK all their adult
lives. They have three teenage children. Between them they earn about £350 a week. Her
husband’s drug addiction has put a great strain on their marriage and finances. Bibi has only
recently discovered his drug habit, and how much it was costing. The bills and mortgage are
in a mess, they have credit card debts and have borrobibwed from friends and family. Her
husband used to manage the money but now Bibi has to do everything. She finds it very
stressful.
Four years ago my nephew’s bike went missing, and I questioned my boys; I blamed them, at
which they were very upset. One year later my husband came home drunk and said that he
was taking drugs and that’s where the money went. He would never bother us at home,
would be always great with the kids. My world turned upside down when I realised that it was
him to blame and not the kids. I have managed to get him support to get him off the drugs; it
has not been easy for me and the kids. I have had to get a job for the first time in years. I am
trying to keep the family together.
Table 3, below, shows the four different control types alongside the
average household income, average household deprivation score and
average mother deprivation score for households of that type.

Table 3: Comparison of household income and deprivation
scores by control type
Control type Number of Household Average Average mother
households Income household deprivation
deprivation
(% national
median)
Strong female 5 72% 4.2 2.8

control
Near to 11 70% 5.2 2.1
equal control
Mostly male 8 68% 6.2 2.9

control
Strong male 6 ?* 5.7 2.7

control
* This figure is not known as only three of this group knew their household income.
From the table, the impact of women’s control on material deprivation is

clear: the higher the level of female control, the lower the level of
household deprivation. Where decision-making was more equal,
deprivation scores for mothers were also lower. However, where mothers
had strong control it seems they were prioritising the material needs of
other household members above their own, something discussed in
Chapter 5. It is also interesting to note that households with higher
incomes generally tended to be more equal. This has been noted in a
number of previous studies (Pahl 1989 and 1999, Morris 1984).
Getting the credit

In Chapter 3 it was shown that state transfers were crucial to most of the
families, making up almost half of the income of the average household.
Although the take-up rate for Child Tax Credit was high, two interviewees
were not claiming anything. She does not get any Child Benefit and does
not know if there are any tax credits coming in. When asked about tax
credits, she talked about her husband paying tax. Clearly, she is not aware
of the tax credits or Child Benefit system (interviewer’s comments about
Preet, Indian).
Both Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit are supposed to be claimed by the
main carer in the family. In the large majority of cases this means the
mother. Previous research has shown that when mothers have control of
this money, it provides an important independent source of income and
gives them at least some degree of financial freedom (Pahl 1989, Goode et
al 1998). However, in almost one-third of the households in the study both
Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit were being claimed by the husband,

were paid into his bank account and controlled by him. This was
especially evident when the interviewee had come to the UK to get
married; such women were often ignorant of the system in the UK. Because
I am British-born, when I had my child I completed the Child Benefit form,
therefore I have access to it. However, [in the case of] women who have joined
their husband, don’t know the system and don’t speak English, the husband puts
his details and the money goes into his account (Amina, Pakistani).
Counting every penny

When money is in short supply, developing effective strategies to manage
it is vital. Numerous strategies were used by the interviewees and their
partners to make sure limited resources stretched as far as possible.
Almost all agreed that ‘prioritising’ was crucial – knowing what was really
essential and what was not. For example, reducing the heating, cutting
back on food expenditure and reducing social activities were common
strategies. Not buying clothes was mentioned by many women, both as a
general principle and when money was particularly tight. Sometimes I have
stopped buying clothes for myself. I have spoken to my husband about this. He is
sympathetic, but there isn’t anything we can do (Anisa, Pakistani). Knowing
where to shop for the cheapest bargains, be it food, clothes, electrical items
or cosmetics, was seen as important. Self-control was seen as a key skill;
being conscious of every penny and never overspending was vital. We
have to prioritise. We also spend reasonably within our means, for example, we
shop from cheap supermarkets and we are always careful with our spending.
Children have pack lunches because it is the cheapest option (Wafa, Arab)
Particular importance was placed by many interviewees on the avoidance
of debt, other than mortgage debt and loans from family members for
setting up businesses. This appears to be a strong cultural taboo for all the
ethnic groups in the study except for the Indian families. No credit or
borrowing, we don’t think this is good (Samira, Pakistani). However, those
born in the UK were more likely to use credit cards or small bank loans
when needed. There was no mention of doorstep lending by any of the
interviewees.
Several interviewees spoke of the importance of saving through a kitty or
‘committee’ (see box, In brief, page 35). This provided an opportunity to
save and a kind of insurance system if a crisis should occur.


In brief: The committee or kitty
A committee or kitty is a group of people who save an agreed amount regularly over 50
weeks in the year. The committee is the Pakistani version; the kitty is the Indian version.
Each committee has a co-ordinator who takes responsibility for deposits and payouts.
Each person has to commit to deposit the agreed amount with the co-ordinator every week
over 50 weeks in the year.
The weekly payout is done through negotiation and prioritises anyone in immediate need. If
there is no specific claim, lots may be drawn or people might leave their claim until the end of
the year.
In a typical committee, the weekly payout of £2,500 is based on a weekly deposit of £50.
Two people could get together and deposit £25 each for one committee, or one person could
deposit £100 for two committees.
The system is based on trust, and most committees involve family and close friends.
Individual members have to take on the liability if they refer others for membership.
The co-ordinator needs to be well trusted as they could disappear with the deposits (this has
been known to happen).
I started doing the committee in 1981; I got to know about it from a friend who was helping
women to manage on very limited incomes. Being a mother with four children, wanting to buy
something nice for them [but] not having the money to do that, I thought that this was a great
way [by] cutting back on the weekly shopping to put a few pounds a week into the kitty, and
to get a lump sum for whatever I needed to spend it on. I would put £3 a week into the
committee and I got £150 which was a lot of money in 1981. I have now been running the
committee successfully for many years (A Committee Co-ordinator).
The impact of going without

Living with little money had both a physical and a psychological impact
on the women in the study group. The physical impact has already been
touched on in the material deprivation scoring, and this was also reflected
in the in-depth interviews. The physical impact included sometimes being
cold, hungry or living in overcrowded conditions:
I’d love a bigger house. We are ten in a small, three-bedroomed house (Shindo,
Indian).
What I do is bulk buy food and freeze. But then during the month, there is milk
and bread. Sometimes, we have to do without, just use up what we have in the
fridge and freezer, until I am paid (Patience, African).
One of the interviewers observed: When I arrived at 7pm, they were all sitting
in the living room with the gas fire on and wrapped up in blankets. At one point,
the daughter opened the door to the kitchen, and I felt the chill – obviously they
were heating only one room (comments regarding Patience, African).
For most of those interviewed, the psychological impact was worse than
the physical. Many talked about the worry and stress of trying to manage
on a low income: I don’t feel good, and I get upset, stressed and unhappy. I have
to just get by (Bibi, Bangladeshi). Such feelings were widespread among
the interviewees. It’s depressing knowing that we are in debt with money, and
it’s tough. It makes me feel down about things. I have the kids and house to run, I
can’t be like that. I just try to be happy and spend time with the children and my

husband (Yalda, Pakistani). For some interviewees, worry also had an
impact on physical health: I get fed up and depressed. I suffer from blood
pressure, and worrying has caused it (Preet, Indian).
The role of extended family

In several cases, the extended family had a significant impact on how
household resources were allocated. This was either because large
remittances were being sent to them, or because they lived in very close
proximity to the interviewee and had some kind of direct control over her
household. In some cases, one or both parents-in-law lived with the
interviewee and made a regular financial contribution, balancing out the
high cost in household resources and emotional energy. However, in most
cases the effect was strongly negative, with the in-laws placing a
significant drain on the limited money available (see box, Lakhbir’s story).
Lakhbir’s story: The dominant in-laws

Lakhbir and her husband were both born in the UK of Pakistani origin. They have five young
children. Lakhbir’s husband is a partner in a family business, while she works part time. She
is responsible for managing the household finances, as his money is tied up in the family
business. She blames his family for the control they exercise over him. Until a few years ago,
all the Child Benefit, tax credits and both their wages were placed in a family pool controlled
by Lakhbir’s extended family; her husband’s wages are still controlled in this way. She finds
there is not enough money for five kids and she feels guilty spending money, especially on
herself. Her husband works seven days a week and has little time for his family, and he won’t
spend money on them.
Now I have my own money, my wages, I have control, although my husband’s money is still
under extended family control. I can’t say, ‘can you bring £500 for this or that’, so many
questions would be asked so I can’t talk to him freely about money. For example, when
booking holidays I would rather do it myself with my own money. I do not blame my husband,
it is his family. But I am frustrated; my whole situation is as a result of his finance being
controlled by the family. I am responsible for five children; really I manage on my own.
Remittances and visits abroad

Half of the households were sending money to family abroad or elsewhere
in the UK, and this put an additional strain on their finances. In almost all
cases, this money went exclusively to the husband’s family. Amounts
varied greatly, from a regular payment of £25 a week to occasional
payments of several thousand pounds for family weddings. Yes, we send
money to John’s mother. We know it’s not just for her; she shares it with the
brothers and sisters. That is how it is in our culture. We help each other out. We
have to send money, otherwise how would John’s mother eat? (Patience,
African). Several of the households that were sending money had high
levels of deprivation and low incomes, so this additional call on the
household’s resources was having a real impact (see box, Parveen’s story).

Parveen’s story: Sending too much to the in-laws
Parveen is British-born, her husband was born in Bangladesh. They have two toddlers. Her
husband is self-employed and manages all the family finances. They don’t have enough
money due to her husband not earning enough. She says she is not interested in taking
responsibility for finances; the thought stresses her, but she wants to help by working in the
future. Her in-laws seriously affect her household finances, with a substantial amount of
money being sent to them in Scotland every month. Supporting the in-laws financially affects
her family life, but she also feels a duty and responsibility to do this.
I do feel upset. I could have spent that money on myself, my kids, my house. I could have
paid bills off. I had savings but I gave it to them. I have never said no. I struggle myself, and
never let on to them. They like me a lot. I do not want to hurt them.
The need to visit family abroad also put a strain on scarce resources. Ten of the
women interviewed said they preferred to save up to visit family every few years
rather than take an annual holiday closer to home. But getting two adults and
three or four children to Pakistan or the Middle East is a very expensive
undertaking. I try to visit my own family every three to four years. So we have to save
for this, £650 for tickets for me and the children, plus gifts to take back (Salma, Arab).
The desire to visit family was a major source of conflict in some relationships.
The large majority of visits were to the interviewee’s family rather than her
husband’s, and he often objected. To be able to visit my family, I have to save not less
than £4,000. For this reason, I only take my children once in four years. It puts pressure
on the finances. My husband refuses to be involved. He says, ‘you want to go at this price
it has nothing to do with me’. If it was up to him I wouldn’t go, and my children
wouldn’t have known their family (Nadia, Arab). In other cases, women were
unable to visit their family abroad at all, as their husband explicitly forbade it.

• Many of the women in the study had very limited access to money,
and some had none at all.
• Even where interviewees said there was equality, husbands often
retained the final say in decision-making.
• A small number of women had taken full financial control in their
household. This was often in response to a crisis such as
unemployment, and not something they were happy about.
• In one-third of households, the father rather the mother was
claiming and controlling Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. Two
households were not claiming at all.
• Almost all of the women said that money was tight, and they had
developed a range of ways to stretch resources.
• There was a strong aversion to getting into debt amongst all the
ethnic groups except the Indian interviewees.
• ‘Going without’ had both physical and psychological consequences
for many of the women in the study. Anxiety and depression were
regularly reported.
• Extended family, particularly in-laws, sometimes had a major
impact on household finances and on the interviewee.
• Half of the sample group was sending remittances to the husband’s
extended family, and in some cases this was causing financial
problems.
• The need to save money for trips to see the interviewee’s family
abroad also put a strain on household finances. Sometimes the
husband objected, leading to family conflict.

Chapter 5: His role, her role
Underpinning many of the issues noted in the previous chapters are
fundamental assumptions about the different roles that husbands and
wives should have. These assumptions are explored in more detail in this
chapter.
Gender roles yesterday and today

Traditionally, both in the UK and in the countries of origin of those in the
study group, society defined the role of the man as ‘worker’ and of
woman as ‘care-giver’. The assumptions about the family were clear: a
married man would work full time, earning a wage sufficient to support
his family. Married women would be economically dependent on their
husbands, keeping the home and raising children (although in reality,
women throughout the world have commonly worked long hours on the
land or in paid employment). In the UK, this kind of division in gender
roles has been steadily eroded over the last five decades. Today, there are
as many women as men in paid employment and men have generally
taken on a greater role in childcare (Millar et al 2006, Siann and Wilkinson
1995, p.10). However, it is not at all clear what ‘normal’ expectations now
are; families which consist of two financially-independent partners who
equally share caring responsibilities are still very much a minority. For
example, in 2004, 44 per cent of all working women worked part time
(Millar et al 2006), but only 11 per cent of men; women are far more likely
to undertake part-time employment at all times of life, to fit around their
family responsibilities. In most modern households, the female partner
remains somewhat financially dependent on male earning, and the male
partner remains somewhat dependent on female care-giving. An
additional complication for the families in the study group was the
blending of traditional cultural and religious attitudes with expected
gender roles in British society, including dual earning. For every couple in
the study group, the roles undertaken by each partner were areas of
negotiation and complexity.
In brief: The male-breadwinner model

‘The male-breadwinner model’ describes a set of assumptions about family life which sees
the man as responsible for earning the household income and the woman as responsible for
domestic care. This does not preclude the earning of a small income by the woman. Such a
model underpinned UK family policy after the Second World War, when only one married
woman in eight was in paid work. However, in 2010, married women are as likely to be in
paid work as their husbands. Families consisting of a full-time working father, a stay-at-home
mother and their children, account for less than ten per cent of families. The situation is
further complicated because a large proportion of family income is now through state
transfers in the form of tax credits.

Breadwinning and female employment
In 16 of the households studied, only the husband did paid work; in nine
households both partners worked; and in three households only the
woman was employed. In all of the households where both partners
worked, the man worked full time and the woman part time. These
figures show a pattern of gendered employment which is not typical of the
UK population as a whole. Attitudes to female work were often rooted in
religious or cultural traditions. In our religion it is man’s main responsibility
[to work] in our thinking. Women do housework (Irmtiaz, Pakistani). I believe
that the husband traditionally has the main role to earn for the family (Kaynat,
Bangladeshi).
However, even in the study group the male-breadwinner model is not in
the majority, as shown in Table 4 (see box, In brief, page 39).
Table 4: Households by breadwinning type

Household Male Shared Female State transfer
type breadwinner breadwinner breadwinner dependent
Number 9 8 2 9
Moreover, there was one household where both partners were working
full time and two where both were working roughly equal part-time
hours. Female earnings made an important contribution to the family,
keeping their household out of income poverty in six households. Several
of the women interviewed were very consciously challenging the
traditional gendered division of roles: I think that women should work; I work
and my husband works. I think that women should be independent. I was brought
up by my father to be independent and that’s how, financially, I started up on a
good step (Akhtar, Bangladeshi). Where women did work, men were taking
a greater role in care work, with the husband often looking after pre-
school children during the day.
Overall, then, the picture is of a generally traditional pattern of paid
work, but with around one-third of families showing more gender balance
in their family earning.

Patience’s story: Female breadwinning
Patience and her husband were both born in West Africa and have been in the UK for a
decade. They have two children. Patience works full time and is fairly well-paid; her husband
is unemployed. She handles all the finances, bills and shopping. They have different financial
priorities; he spends his money on going out, whereas she thinks about the home. She is
frustrated and angry with his attitude, but she recognises it is hard for him too; in their
culture, a man should pay the bills. She struggles to pay the heating costs in winter, and
sometimes even to buy food, especially at the end of the month. They have a car on credit
but no other debts. She sends money abroad to his mother. Patience finds life in England
very hard. She is doing the double shift and says she wonders what the use of the man is.
I would not trust him with the money. We have different priorities. If I involved him in
spending my wages, I think he would spend all the money on useless going out, eating out,
before we can pay bills. It is hard enough now. I changed from utility bills to meter. I thought
that it would help us control spending on gas and electricity, but I have found it very tough.
This winter has been bad, and what do we do if we don’t have money to put into the meter?
The desire for paid work

In spite of the rather traditional approach to breadwinning in many of the
households studied, there was a consistently strong, and perhaps
surprising, desire amongst the women interviewed to undertake paid
employment. In answer to the question ‘What sort of things would help
make things better for you financially?’ the great majority of interviewees
answered either ‘getting a job’ or ‘working longer hours’. For women
already in jobs, they were an important source of self-esteem,
independence, and personal spending money. My husband used to work and
wanted me to stay at home. I did not like it, but because of kids it was okay to do
that. Now at last I have started to work. It’s hard after all these years, but I enjoy
it, and the social setting of being out is good (Bibi, Bangladeshi).
For those not in employment, having a job was seen as the best way to
improve the family’s financial circumstances. It was commonly felt that
mothers of pre-school children should not be in paid work, but several
women who had pre-school children were already preparing themselves
for a return to paid work through training. I would like to work as well as my
husband, to get a job. I have progressed with my English a lot. I was only allowed
to do English classes in the last two years, so that I could help my children and
myself in doing things (Bahaar, Pakistani). The women recognised many
potential barriers to paid work, including the availability of jobs, their
English language and numeracy skills, a lack of affordable childcare, and,
in some cases, the attitudes of husband or extended family.
One note of caution should be sounded here: most of the women
interviewed had already made the decision to undertake training at the
Angelou Centre, and so they may not be wholly typical of their
communities. Nevertheless, for more than half of the women in the study
group, their desire to find employment was in clear contrast to their actual
position as stay-at-home mothers. When it comes to gender roles, ethnic
minority women, it seems, are often more progressive in their attitudes

than their husbands. Getting a job is important. I have trained and got
experience through volunteering; now I need a job to be self-reliant. Then I can
spend more on the things that I want to without having to justify it to someone
else. Everything is done according to what men think should happen (Samira,
Pakistani).
Providing for the children

So far, discussion has mostly focused on the interviewees and their
husbands. But of course the need to provide for children was a crucial
aspect of the finances of all the households in the study group. Most of the
families were large, with an average of three children, and in some cases
five or six. All but one of the women interviewed said they had the
responsibility for making sure their children’s needs were met. I am
responsible for the needs of the children. I decide how much to spend, according to
the priorities which arise at different times (Wafa, Arab). Even when the
husband had complete control of the family finances, the woman was still
charged with making sure the children got what they needed: I tell him
when the children need new clothes, coats, shoes, and so on (Chedza, African).
Having the responsibility for meeting her children’s financial needs could
lead a mother into conflict with them: My daughters and I often quarrel over
money. It is usually over them asking for money to go to town, eat out with
friends, and buy clothes. I can’t afford to say yes all the time. I feel bad we argue
over money (Diljeet, Indian).
Often, making sure that the children had what they needed meant
hardship for the woman. Material deprivation scores for children were
consistently lower than for their mothers (averaging 1.5 and 2.5
respectively). Interestingly, deprivation scores for children showed very
little variation according to household income; clearly, the sacrifices of
other household members, especially mothers, protected children. Even
amongst the lowest-income households, half of the children had
deprivation scores of zero or one. These findings were borne out in the in-
depth section of the interviews: My children have a greater claim on money
than I do. Their needs are more important. When they ask for something, I just
buy it. If I need something, I wait for the sale (Nadia, Arab). Yes, it is my
daughter, then him, then me. When I am going to buy, that is how I think. It is
me last (Patience, African).
The belief that material sacrifices should be made on behalf of children,
and the recognition that the bulk of such sacrifices would fall on mothers,
were two of the strongest findings of the study. Someone will have to make
sacrifices and it is usually the mother (Saira, Bangladeshi).

Who should manage the money?
It has already been seen in Chapter 4 that a substantial number of the
women had little or no access to money. At the other extreme, a few of
those interviewed had taken complete control of their household finances
because they said their husbands weren’t capable of managing the money
responsibly. But what did interviewees think ought to happen in an ideal
world? A small number of women saw the household finances as a major
burden and were delighted that their husbands took a dominant role in
decision-making. I am not good, not careful with money. It will drop out of my
pocket or I will put it in the kitchen cabinet then forget about it. I stress too much
if can’t pay bills on time. My husband does not like me to stress too much so does
it himself (Parveen, Bangladeshi). Most, however, argued that ideally there
should be equality. Ideally, a mother is better at home, but only if her role is
valued and respected. [Her] husband must recognise that her role is as important
as his role, and she must have control over the money as well (Wafa, Arab). Yet
such a desire for equality was rarely reflected in reality; in most of the
households, the man retained overall control of financial decision-making,
even when the woman had day-to-day control of a pot of spending
money. A consistent theme throughout the interviews was a desire for
gender equality that was not reflected in the reality of interviewee’s lives.
Nabila’s story: Very far from equal

Both Nabila and her husband were born in North Africa, but have lived in the UK for years.
They have four teenage children. Nabila works part time and her husband full time. Her self-
respect means she never asks what he earns. He pays the bills, and the mortgage is already
paid off. He gives her a weekly housekeeping allowance and she has her wages. She
manages all the day-to-day expenses. They never go out as a family; she takes the kids out,
but he thinks it is an unnecessary extravagance. She doesn’t have enough money to live
comfortably and has very high material deprivation. However, she manages to save through
a committee and send money to family abroad. Her husband won’t let her visit her family.
She believes in equal sharing in financial issues, but this is very far from her reality.
I think both the man and women should provide the important things, discuss and decide
together, but I never discuss money with him. He never gave me money for food or nappies.
I used to borrow from my mother-in-law and pay her back. He just keeps everything to
himself. My mum and dad were different, they shared with each other.
There was also a widely-held view that women were better at managing
the household finances on a day-to-day basis. [Women] would certainly
create a better lifestyle for their children and the whole family because they are
wise and think deeply and consider their family home as their own kingdom
(Nadia, Arab).
A number of women said that men were irresponsible with money,
usually based on their personal experience: When he gets money, he buys
clothes, shoes, goes to the pub, buys cigarettes. It is all up to me. He can promise,
but that is all, so I have to be careful, and plan only [based] on what I have. I have
priorities, food, bills. He spends on himself (Cerise, African). As a result of

this, several women were trying to maximise their control of the
household finances, and several more wished they were able to. For these
women, having a job meant the chance to have a source of money which
only they controlled. I don’t justify my spending to my husband. My salary is
mine; I control it and I spend it according to my judgment. I work hard to enjoy
this independence (Nadia, Arab).
Conflicts over gender roles

While some women in the study group were happy with their financial
arrangements, they were in a clear minority. For most, control of the
family finances was, or had recently been, an area of conflict and they
were engaged in a struggle to increase their access to household resources.
Sometimes such conflict was overt but more often the wife was unable to
discuss money issues openly with her husband. As has been seen, these
conflicts centred on three main areas: the amount of income each partner
contributed to the household, who had control over spending and
decision-making, and a woman’s right to undertake paid work. These
conflicts are well illustrated by the following quotes:
Life in England is hard. It’s tough juggling a working life with working in a
business. The problem is that, in our community, it’s an expectation that the
woman does the work at home. So you go for the nine-to-five, then get home and
do the six-to-twelve job, cleaning, homework, cooking. It brings a strain on the
relationship because if I can do all that, what is the use of the man? I am doing all
the worrying about finances (Patience, African).
I should have a say, but he decides on how money is spent since he controls it. I
should have a say. In all societies women are flattened down and not allowed to
grow (Samira, Pakistani).
[Not doing a paid job] will deprive the woman from her rights like meeting people,
opportunities for socialising. If a man meets friends, improves himself and his
language, the woman should have the same opportunities. What opportunities are
available in the house? None. A person who doesn’t go out and meet people is like
a domestic animal. Animals eat, sleep and obey their master, which is wrong
(Salma, Arab).

• Cultural and personal assumptions about the different roles of
husband and wife had an important influence on women’s lives.
• The families in the study generally had a traditional arrangement of
gender roles, with the man earning the money and the woman
doing the domestic care.
• Despite traditional work patterns, only nine of the households
could be described as ‘male breadwinner’. Eight were shared
breadwinner, two female breadwinner, and nine primarily
dependent on state transfers.
• There are some clear exceptions to the generally typical gender
roles in the group, with several women doing as much paid work
as their husbands and some men taking a greater share of childcare.
• The women interviewed were keen to undertake paid work, with
almost all saying that getting a job or more hours in an existing job
would be the best way to improve household finances.
• Women were almost always primarily responsible for the material
needs of their children. Often these were met by the mother
sacrificing her own needs.
• Most of the women had a desire for gender equality in financial
matters, but this was not often reflected in the reality of their lives.
• Three specific areas were commonly the cause of conflict: the
amount of income each partner contributed to the household, who
had control over spending and decision-making, and a woman’s
right to undertake paid work.

Chapter 6: Discussion and recommendations
The key findings of the research project have already been presented in
summary form at the end of each chapter. They will not be repeated here.
Instead, this final chapter aims to provide an overarching framework for
the findings already presented, to seek to explain them, and to present
recommendations for improvements in policy and practice that would
better the lives of the women in the study and others like them.
Testing the core issues

Although the in-depth interviews were the main research tool in this
project, a survey was also used to test the findings from the interviews.
Between March and July 2010, 109 women who used the Angelou Centre
were asked whether they identified with any of the ‘headline’ issues from
the qualitative interviews. Twenty key issues were identified by the
research team and were written up on the wall. The background and aims
of the research were briefly explained to all the respondents consulted.
They were then asked to place a sticky dot next to the issues which they
felt resonated with their own experiences and lives (the full findings are
given in Appendix 1).
Unlike the interviewees, the survey respondents were not controlled in
any way; they were not necessarily mothers, living on a low income or
from a household with a full-time worker. However, anecdotal evidence
from the Angelou research team suggests that the majority did fit these
categories. The ethnic breakdown of the respondents loosely reflected the
five ethnic groups interviewed, but with a predominance of Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis: 42 Pakistani, 39 Bangladeshi, nine Indian, eight Arab, four
African, and seven ‘other’.
All of the issues were recognised by at least one-quarter of the
respondents, and six were recognised by more than half. These six issues
were: ‘Most women are responsible for finding money for the children’; ‘I
have to justify spending to my husband’; ‘I feel most women are more
careful with money than men’; ‘There is influence from the extended
family over finances and husband’s wages’; ‘Men/husbands have control
over women’s finances including trips abroad’; and ‘I want to work to get
financial independence’.
These results show that the key issues identified by the interviewees
clearly resonated with others. The issues which the interviewees spoke
about were not just particular to them, but genuinely reflected the lives of
wider communities of BME women. The survey responses therefore
provide strong evidence to support the interview findings, and for using
them to draw conclusions about the lives of BME women and make policy
recommendations.

What wasn’t said
Before returning to what was said by the interviewees, it is important to
note a number of major issues that weren’t mentioned. None of the
women interviewed talked about the possibility of leaving their husbands,
even where there seemed to be very considerable difficulties in the
relationship. For the ethnic minority communities covered in this project,
marital breakdown carries considerable taboo and stigma; linked to
marital breakdown are issues of shame and family honour. It seems likely
that the strong taboo surrounding marital breakdown for many of the
women in the study deprives them of a critical bargaining tool when
unequal monetary arrangements are being made.
Research has shown that one in five women in the UK will at some point
be victims of domestic violence, and ethnic minority women are no
exception to this (Walby and Allen 2004), but this was not mentioned by
any of the interviewees. It is, of course, hardly surprising that
interviewees did not make disclosures about domestic violence, but it is
probable that at least some of those interviewed were living with the
reality or the threat of it. Previous studies have argued that excessive
male financial control of household resources is intimately linked to
domestic violence, and that there is no hope of financial equality where
the threat of male violence, however veiled, is present (Sen 1990). Some
authors have suggested the terms ‘economic violence’ or ‘economic
abuse’ to describe the way men can control household resources at the
expense of their wives (Fawole 2008, Adams et al 2008). Economic
violence does not just mean unequal access to resources; it describes a
situation where a woman has so little access to money that key aspects of
her life pass out of her own control and into her husband’s,
fundamentally curtailing her freedom. This can include preventing her
from getting or keeping a job, withholding funds, spending family
income without consent, not letting someone know of or have access to
household income, or forcing someone to ask for basic necessities
(Hidden Hurt 2010). In several cases in the study group, the household
financial arrangements were, or previously had been, so unequal as to
suggest fundamental power imbalances which bordered on economic
violence. In particular, women who are prohibited from going to work
by their partners or who receive no family maintenance from working
husbands are the victims of economic violence (see the boxes Akhtar’s
story, Lakhbir’s story and Nabila’s story, pages 27, 36 and 43).
Equality and inequality

Earlier research has argued that the unequal distribution of incomes across
society means that some households will be unable to meet the material
needs of household members, even when a household member is in paid
work (Kenway 2008). Other studies have suggested that women receive an

unequal share of household financial resources (Pahl 1989, Bradshaw et al
2003, Millar 2003). This study has considered both kinds of inequality, and
confirmed both these suggestions.
The material deprivation scoring used has revealed that three-quarters of
the households in the study were unable to meet the material needs of all
their members, and half had very high levels of deprivation. Comparison
of material deprivation and household income levels suggests that any
household with an income below 65 per cent of the national median is
very likely to have high levels of material deprivation. Households with
higher incomes may have very high levels of material deprivation too,
even where household income is over 75 per cent of the national median.
While there is a broad connection between household income and material
deprivation, a relatively high income is no guarantee of little or no
household deprivation.
The material deprivation scoring has also revealed that access to material
resources within the household unequally disadvantages mothers. Two
out of three mothers in the study had a high level of material deprivation,
compared to only one in nine of the children. In more than one-third of the
households, the mother has a deprivation score twice that of her family or
her children. Although the study did not allocate material deprivation
scores to fathers, evidence from the in-depth interviews strongly suggests
that the control of family finances exercised by men, plus personal and
cultural beliefs about the roles of men and women, often slants access to
household resources towards men and away from women.
Explaining the unequal distribution of resources

It is possible to find explanations for the material deprivation levels of
nearly all of the women in the study by looking at their answers to the in-
depth interview questions and at their household income data. The
women fall roughly into three groups:
A group of five women had zero or very little deprivation. All of these five
either had a high household income (over 75 per cent of median) or a
strong and clearly-defined role in financial management and decision-
making.
A second group consisted of the 11 women who had some deprivation but
shared it more or less equally with their family and children. Low
household income (below 65 per cent of median) coupled with a clearly
articulated belief in gender equality was the key explanatory factor in
most of these cases.
The final group consisted of the 14 women who had a level of material
deprivation that was both high and significantly greater than that of both
their family and children. A number of factors were at work here: low
household income, sending significant remittances abroad, control by in-

laws, not claiming tax credits, male financial irresponsibility, and a very
self-sacrificial maternal attitude or a husband who monopolised control of
family finances. In some cases, several of these factors were at work
simultaneously. No one simple explanation is possible for the weak access
these women could gain to the resources of their household, but all these
explanations have been explored in depth earlier in the study.
Tackling BME mothers’ material deprivation

Two issues emerged as crucial to women’s material circumstances: the
level of household income and the intra-household distribution of that
income. These will be dealt with in turn.
For a substantial number of the women in the study, low household
income was the main explanatory factor for their material circumstances,
and increasing their household income would have a marked impact on
their deprivation level. Securing paid work was the single thing most
likely to improve the financial circumstances of these women.
Those women who were already in paid work earned on average £145 a
week, an important contribution to household income equivalent to
around 12 percentage points of household median income after tax. In
eight households, the earnings of the female partner were keeping the
household out of income poverty. Because of issues around the intra-
household distribution of resources, female wage-earning was not always
correlated with low levels of material deprivation. Nevertheless, of the
five women in the study group with no household deprivation of any
significance, three were in paid work. Moreover, in the small number of
extreme cases where women had little or no access to their husband’s
wages, their own earnings were crucial in enabling them to provide for
themselves and their children (see Akhtar’s story on page 27, Bibi’s story
on page 32 and Lakhbir’s story on page 36).
Several of the women interviewed who weren’t in paid work stated a clear
desire to find a job, and said that getting a job would greatly improve their
financial circumstances. This is difficult to dispute; for example, getting
the second partner into a half-time minimum wage job would add about
£80 a week to the household income. This would be enough to lift all six of
the income-poor households in the study out of household income
poverty.
Barriers to work identified by the women interviewed included the
availability of jobs, their English language and numeracy skills, and a lack
of affordable childcare. The availability of jobs depends to some extent on
the macro-economic climate in the UK, but improving the confidence,
English language and work skills of BME women, and encouraging them
to apply for a wider variety of jobs, can all improve their chances of

securing those jobs that are available. The most obvious way to do this is
through community organisations.
Such community organisations are able to build long-term relationships of
trust with women; indeed, this research project would have been
impossible without such relationships. These relationships can prove
crucial in giving women the confidence to identify their career aspirations,
to improve their English language, literacy and numeracy skills, and to
undertake work-focused training. Peer support has a vital role to play in
this process, as demonstrated in the Angelou centre’s own ‘Aspire2’ and
‘Aspire2be’ projects (Angelou Centre 2009). The local reputation of such
community organisations, and the promotion of their services through
word of mouth, has a crucial role to play in attracting women to what they
offer. Community organisations also provide employment opportunities
for local BME women in a number of capacities, from cleaners to
managers. Apprenticeships and other employment schemes need to be
fully accessible to community organisations so they can support the
maximum number of local women into work. To achieve their full
potential, such organisations need secure, long-term funding and to be
fully supported by statutory providers like Jobcentre Plus and local
authorities. This is not always the case.
Childcare was identified as a significant barrier to work by women in the
study. Local authorities should already be ensuring that childcare is
widely available in local communities. However, it is important to ensure
that this is in culturally-appropriate venues; mothers need to trust the
childcare provider that will be looking after their children. There were
serious doubts among the research team about the adequacy of local
childcare provision for BME women in the West of Newcastle, particularly
after 3pm on school days and during school holidays. Awareness of the
Childcare Tax Credit and childcare vouchers seemed very low amongst
those interviewed, and this needs to be further promoted alongside Child
and Working Tax Credits as discussed above.
Setting national targets for reducing the economic inactivity of different
groups of BME women would be challenging, but potentially
transformative, in focusing attention on the issue.
Surprisingly, raising the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 a year,
as proposed by the coalition government, would have a very limited effect
on household incomes in the study group, unless tax credit withdrawal
thresholds were also increased. Even where two adults in the household
earned a reasonable wage, income would increase by less than £10 a week
after equivalisation.
Looking beyond paid work, for two women in the study just claiming the
Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits to which they were entitled would
have an immediate and striking impact on their situation, lifting both of
their households out of income poverty. This suggests the need for further

work around benefits maximisation, perhaps targeted at BME women and
delivered through, or in partnership with, trusted community
organisations such as the Angelou Centre. Support for women not fluent
in English seems especially important.
The second group of issues identified centres around intra-household
income distribution. Figures in Chapter 4 (Table 3, page 33) strongly
suggest that households with gender equality in control of finances have
lower levels of both maternal and household deprivation. But ensuring
that women have equal access to the material resources of their household
is a considerable challenge, and is less amenable to traditional policy
solutions. However, better access to Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit
would significantly improve the financial circumstances of some of the
women in the study. Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit are supposed to
be paid to the main carer in the family. Yet in one-third of the cases in the
study group it was paid to the man, either into a joint account which he
controlled or into an account in his name. One of the simplest ways to
increase the proportion of household resources accessible to women
would be to change the rules so that Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit in
couple households must always be paid into an account controlled by the
mother. Supporting women to set up bank accounts in their own name
would be an additional bonus of this policy. At the very least, Child Tax
Credit and Child Benefit should never be paid into an account held only in
the father’s name.
Working to promote gender equality within BME communities means
challenging existing cultural norms, something which can be deeply
uncomfortable because it intrudes into people’s private spaces. The most
obvious way to do this is through working to support BME mothers
themselves. The interviews revealed that many BME women are already
aware of the inequality of their situation and are trying to do something
about it. They need support, preferably from other BME women from
similar backgrounds and in settings where they feel safe and relaxed. The
stories of women such as Fullara and Amina (see boxes, pages 30 and 52)
show that it is possible for determined BME women to take greater control
over their family finances and their lives. Projects need to be developed
with the specific aim of helping BME mothers to increase their share of
household financial resources.
Work also needs to be undertaken with BME fathers. This could be done
through dads’ groups such as those supported by Sure Start, where issues
of intra-household resource distribution could be explicitly tackled. It
could also be addressed through other projects involving men, such as
employment, health and sports projects. Religious organisations also have
a role to play; for example, Oxfam’s experience of campaigning on
domestic violence in India suggests that working in partnership with
imams and priests can prove a powerful tool for changing men’s attitudes.

Just getting the issues dealt with in this report more widely talked about
in BME communities would be a significant step forward.
Amina’s story: Working for equality

Amina and her husband are both British-born, of Pakistani origin. They have two teenage
children. He works and is well paid, she doesn’t. She controls Child Tax Credit and Child
Benefit while he has his salary. They each have their own accounts. She likes to shop, and
does so often. She doesn’t struggle with money at all, has no problems making ends meet,
no debts and has money to save each week. He has had to learn to be careful from her; he
used to waste his money going out, drinking and even womanising, but she put a stop to it.
She has very strong ideas of gender equality; both decision-making and sacrifices should be
shared, although she thinks men can’t be trusted with money.
He’s a bit clumsy with money; he spends without thinking. I was frustrated at first, wanted to
take control of his account because I didn’t know what he was spending it on, but now I have
learned to let go. It’s his money and it doesn’t affect our finances. Asian men take a while to
learn. You find women are always compromising. When I look back at how we used to be, I
feel like I picked him up from the gutter and cleaned him.
Finally, this project has shown the need for significant improvements in
the way poverty is measured in the UK. It has revealed two important
facts which would be missed in current governmental poverty surveys:
significant material deprivation can exist in households with an income
above the 70 per cent median, and the ways in which households organise
their resources often seriously disadvantage mothers. A methodology has
been put forward which is capable of shining light on these gendered
inequalities in household resource distribution, which current surveys
obscure. If the poverty of women, and in particular the poverty of BME
women, is to be effectively dealt with, it needs to be clearly and explicitly
monitored. A change in poverty surveys so that they can do this is long
overdue. Such improvements in measuring women’s poverty need to be
coupled with serious discussion of it in policy-making arenas, in the
media, and by the broader public. In a time of public spending cuts, it is
especially important to have a clear picture of the effects those cuts are
having on women.

1) Findings and discussion

• Access to material resources within the household unequally
disadvantaged mothers. Two out of three mothers in the study had
a high level of material deprivation, but only one in nine children.
• Three-quarters of the households in the study could not meet the
material needs of their members, and half had very high levels of
deprivation. There was a broad connection between household
income and material deprivation, but a relatively high income was
no guarantee of low deprivation.
• Half of the mothers in the study had a level of material deprivation
that was both high and significantly greater than that of both their
family and children. Causes were: low household income, sending
significant remittances abroad, control by in-laws, not claiming tax
credits, male financial irresponsibility, a very self-sacrificial
maternal attitude or a husband who monopolised control of family
finances. In some cases, several of these factors were at work
simultaneously.
• Several of those interviewed expressed a strong desire for paid
work, and this would mean a real improvement in their household
incomes.
• None of the women in the study group raised issues of domestic
violence although, statistically, some were probably experiencing it.
However, the financial situations of some were so unequal that the
term ‘economic violence’ could be used to describe them.
• There is a strong stigma surrounding marital breakdown in BME
communities. As a result, women may be reluctant to leave their
husbands even when faced with very significant inequality.
• In order to improve the material circumstances of these women,
two things are generally needed: an increase in overall household
income, and greater access to that household income by the mother.
2) Recommendations
• Issues of weak English and numeracy skills, a lack of affordable
childcare and personal self-confidence can best be dealt with
through respected community organisations who can build long-
term relationships of trust. They should be properly supported to
improve employment rates amongst BME women, including secure
funding.

• The childcare needs of BME women need to be better identified,
and sufficient culturally-appropriate provision with trusted
providers needs to be ensured, especially in school holidays.
• Further work to maximise the take-up of Child Tax Credit and
Child Benefit is a clear way to boost household incomes for those
not currently claiming them or not even aware of their existence.
• Child-related benefits should always be paid into an account only
in the mother’s name, or at the very least into an account to which
she has full access.
• It is vital to create supportive settings for BME women to explore
issues around household resources for themselves and to get
appropriate financial advice. Trusted community-based
organisations are the obvious venue for this.
• BME fathers also need to be engaged in discussions of household
resources, for example through fathers’ groups or partnership work
in settings targeting men.
• National poverty measures need to be improved so that they are
able to capture the poverty of all women and in particular BME
women. Such improvements should lead to discussions of women’s
poverty by policy-makers, in the media, and by the broader public.
• Credit unions and organisations working with BME women should
be encouraged to support women to set up ‘kitty’ or ‘committee’
saving systems (see box, page 35).

References
Adams, A., Sullivan, C., Bybee, D. and Greeson, M. (2008) ‘Development of the
Scale of Economic Abuse’ Violence Against Women, Vol. 14, 5, 563-588
Alcock, P (1993) Understanding Poverty Basingstoke: MacMillan
Women’s Budget Group (2005) Women’s and Children’s Poverty: Making the Links
London: Women’s Budget Group
Angelou centre (2009) Aspire Against the Odds: Exploring Barriers Faced by BME
Young Women in Achieving Career Aspirations Newcastle upon Tyne: the Angelou
Centre
Barn, R. (2002) ‘Parenting in a ‘Foreign’ Climate: The Experiences of Bangladeshi
Mothers in Multi-Racial Britain’ Social Work in Europe 9, 28-38
Barn, R. (2008) ‘Ethnicity, Gender and Mental Health; Social Worker
Perspectives’ International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Barn, R. and Sidhu, K. (2005) ‘Understanding the Inter-connections Between
Ethnicity, Gender, Social Class and Health: Experiences of Ethnic Minority
Women in Britain’ Social Work in Health Care 39, 11-27
Bell, C. and MacKee, M. (1985) ‘Marital and family relations in times of male
unemployment' in Robert, B., Finnegan, R. and Gallie, D.(Eds) New Approaches to
Economic Life Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bradshaw, J., Finch, N., Kemp, P., Mayhew, E, Williams, J. (2003) Gender and
Poverty in Britain Equal Opportunities Working Paper no. 6 Equal Opportunities
Commission: Manchester
Buckner, D. et al, 2003, Gender Profile of Newcastle’s labour market, Sheffield Hallam
University
Cantillon, S. and Newman, C. (2005) ‘Bias in Interview Data Created by Presence
of a Third Party: Methodological Issues in a Study of Intra-Household
Deprivation’ Radical Statistics 90, 33-44
Cantillion, S. and Nolan, B. (1998) ‘Are Married Women More Deprived than the
Their Husbands’ Journal of Social Policy 27(2) 151-171
Charles, N. and Kerr, M. (1987) Just the Way it is: ‘Gender and Age Differences in
Family Food Consumption’ in Brannen, J. and Wilson, G. (eds.), Give and Take in
Families London: Allen & Unwin, 1987, 155-17
DWP (2010) Households Below Average Income. An analysis of the income distribution
1995/6-2007/8 Leeds: DWP
Dyson, C, Gorin, S., Hopper, C-A, Cabral, C. (2009) ‘Bangladeshi Families Living
in Hardship – Findings from Research using a Life-History Approach’ Child and
Family Social Work 14,3, 362-37
Equal Opportunities Commission (2007) Moving On Up? The Way Forward: Report
of the EOC’s investigation into Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black Caribbean women and
work. Manchester: The Equal opportunities Commission

ESRC (2004)
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2004/june/
stepfamilies.aspx accessed 3rd August 2010
Fawcett Society (2008) Briefing on Ethnic Minority Women, Poverty and Inequality,
downloaded from http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=822 on
3rd August 2010
Fawcett Society (2009) Poverty pathways: ethnic minority women’s livelihoods
downloaded from http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=968 on
3rd August 2010
Fawole, O. (2008) ‘Economic Violence to Women and Girls; Is It Receiving the
Necessary Attention?’ Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Vol. 9, 3, 167-177
Glendinning, C. and Millar, J. (1987) ‘Invisible Women, Invisible Poverty’,
chapter 1 in Glendinning, C. and Millar, J. (eds.) Women and Poverty in Britain
Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books
Goode, J., Callender, C., Lister, R. (1998) Purse or wallet? Gender inequalities and the
Income Distribution within Families on Benefit London: Policy Studies Institute
Haskey, J. (1999) ‘Divorce and remarriage in England and Wales’, Population
Trends 95, 1999 London: Office for National Statistics.
Hidden Hurt (2010) http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Abuser/wheel.htm accessed
3 August 2010
Home Office (2009) Together We Can End Violence against Women and Girls: A
Strategy downloaded from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100418065544/http://www.home
office.gov.uk/documents/vawg-strategy-2009/ on 3 August 2010
Joseph, S. (1996) ‘Patriarchy and Development in the Arab World’ Gender and
Development Vol.4, 2, 14-19
Kenway, P. (2008) Addressing in-Work Poverty York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Land, H. (1983) ‘Poverty and gender: the Distribution of Resources within the
Family’, ch 3 in ed. Brown, M. The Structure of Disadvantage London: Heinemann
Laurie, H. and Gershuny, J. (2000) Couples, Work and money, chapter 3 in
Berthoud, R and Gershuny, J. (eds.) Seven Years in the Lives of British Families:
Evidence on the Dynamics of Social Change from the British Household Panel Survey
Bristol: Policy Press
Lister, R (2006) ‘Children (but not women) first: New labour, child welfare and
gender’ Critical Social Policy 26 (2); 315-335
Lundberg, S., Pollak, R, Wales, T. (1997) ‘Do Husbands and Wives Pool Their
Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit’ Journal of Human
Resources 32 (3): 463-480
Millar, J. Ridge, T. and Bennett, F. (2006) Part-time Work and Social Security:
Increasing the Options DWP Research Report no.351, Leeds; Corporate Document
Services
Millar, J (2003) ‘Gender, Poverty and Social Exclusion’ Social Policy and Society
2:181-188

Morris, L. (1984) ‘Redundancy and Patterns of Household Finance’ Sociological
Review 33:492-523
Nickenig, A. (2005) ‘How Different Money Management Strategies in Low to
Middle Income Couples Affect their Children’s Well-Being; A Review of the
Literature’ Unpublished
O’Donnell et al, 2008, Equality and Diversity in the North East: a statistical profile
Office for National Statistics (2004) Focus on Ethnicity and Identity,
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/focuson/ethnicity/ accessed on 2 July 2010
Office for National Statistics (2010a) Labour Market Statistics
www.statitiscs.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=1944, accessed on 17 May
2010
Office for National Statistics (2010b) Stepfamilies with dependant children by
family type, 1998-99: Social Trends 31
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=3477&Pos=1&ColRa
nk=1&Rank=224
Pahl, J. (1983) ‘The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within
marriage’ Sociological Review 31(2):237-62
Pahl, J. (1989) Money and Marriage Basingstoke: Macmillan Education
Pahl, J. (1999) Invisible Money: Family Finances in the Electronic Economy Bristol:
Policy Press
Pantazis, C., and Ruspini, E. (2006) ‘Gender, Poverty and Social Exclusion’ ch. 13
in Pantazis, C. Gordon, D., Levitas, R. (eds.) Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain
Bristol: Policy Press
Platt, L. (2002) Parallel Lives? Poverty among ethnic minority groups in Britain
London: Child Poverty Action Group
Sen, A. (1990) ‘Gender and Co-operative Conflicts’ chapter 8 in Tinkler, I. (ed.)
Persistent Inequalities; Women and World Development Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Siann, G and Wilkinson, H. (1995) Gender, Feminism and the Future London:
Demos
Stiell, B. and Tang, N., 2006, Ethnic minority women and access to the Labour Market
in Newcastle, Sheffield Hallam University
Walby, S. and Allen, J. (2004) Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking:
Findings from the British Crime Survey Home Office Research Study 276
Warren, T. (2006) ‘Moving beyond the gender wealth gap: On gender, class,
ethnicity and wealth inequalities in the United Kingdom’ Feminist Economics 12:1-
2, 195-219
Willitts, M. (2006) Measuring child poverty using material deprivation: possible
approaches Leeds: DWP
Women’s Budget Group (2005) Women’s and Children’s Poverty: Making the Links
London: Women’s Budget Group

Appendix 1: Survey responses
Feedback on exposing BME maternal poverty findings

Feedback was gathered from two groups: 46 women who attended the
Angelou Centre’s International Women’s Day for Muslim women on 6
March 2010, and 66 women who completed ESOL or numeracy courses at
the Angelou Centre during July 2010. In total, 109 women participated.
Their ethnic breakdown was: 42 Pakistani, 39 Bangladeshi, nine Indian,
eight Arab, four Bosnian, four African, two Chinese and one Iranian.
The research findings were briefly introduced as follows to all the groups
consulted:
• Women and men don’t always have the same access to money or
possessions in a household.
• This impacts on women’s income, spending, savings, security, ability to
get what children need, and happiness.
• The Angelou Centre, with Oxfam, has spoken to 24 women from different
ethnic backgrounds, to find out more about their experience of these issues.
• We’d like to know what you think of our findings so far.

Part 1
The women were asked whether they identified with any of ‘headline’
issues from the qualitative interviews. These were written up on the wall.
The women then placed a sticky dot next to the comments, which they felt
resonated with their experiences and lives.
ISSUE %
(n. =109)
Most women are responsible for finding money for the children 77
I have to justify spending to my husband 70
Feel most women are more careful with money than men 66
There is influence from the extended family over finances and husband’s wages 63
Men/husbands have control over women’s finances including trips abroad 55
I want to work to get financial independence 51
Would not be able to cope without Child Benefit or Child/Working Tax Credits 44
Women don’t have hobbies or leisure time 40
We support extended family, who have a say in our finances 38
Mothers should sacrifice for children 37
It is mothers who take children out, not fathers 37
Wives don’t know their husband’s income 36
Going to see family is a better use of time and money than holidays 35
I feel men should provide and women stay home with young children 35
A man controls the money even if he is not working 34
I have strategies in place to help manage finances so they work better for me 34
In general I am struggling for money 34
I would rather do without than get into debt 33
We don’t save for special occasions – just for holidays/visits 31
I feel men should pay for rent or mortgage, bills, some food – and women the rest 27

Part 2
The International Women’s Day group were also asked to place post-it
notes with their comments below the following statement.
Do you think women are creative in the ways they manage limited funds?
Can you tell us some examples?
• Recycle goods
• Buy what you need
• Save for a rainy day
• Enjoy free days out
• Always do without to buy for the kids
• Saving with ‘the committee’
• Having a separate savings account
• Take time when shopping to look for discounts and offers
• Cannot work because of health
• Will take time to fill in forms for saving cards, e.g. Tesco and Boots
card

Appendix 2: Interview schedule
‘Exposing maternal poverty’: Short interview schedule
NB: QU questions must be asked of all interviewees. Questions in brackets
need not be asked but provide a prompt/help. Make sure that all the
information from the questions in brackets has been given by the
interviewee in the interview. The timings are for guidance only; the
interview can last up to 90 minutes.
Showcards were used to prompt people in certain questions below. The
showcards used were as follows:
Showcard 1
1. Woman’s regular wages
2. Man’s regular wages
3. Child Benefit
4. Child Tax Credit
5. Working Tax Credit
6. Child maintenance from a previous partner
7. Occasional wages or pay bonuses/tips
8. Money from other members of your household
9. Other income
Showcard 2
Less than £50
£50-£99
£100-£149
£150-£199
£200-£249
£250-£299
£300-£349
£350-£399
£400-£449
£450-£499
Over £500 (can you roughly estimate how much?)

Showcard 3
1. I have this.
2. I would like to have this but cannot afford this at the moment.
3. I do not want/need this at the moment.
4. Does not apply.
Interview questions
1. Family (three minutes)
QU1: Can you describe your family set-up for me?

(Relationship with partner, number of adults in the house, number of
children, previous relationships/stepchildren)
QU2: Were you or any members of your immediate family born outside
the UK?
2. Sources of income (ten minutes)
QU3: Please look at Showcard 1. Can you tell me which of these sources of
income your family receives?
QU3b (asked if 1 applies): Please look at Showcard 2. Can you tell me

roughly how much you receive each week from this source? (Check if this
is before or after tax). Can you tell me about your paid work? (Place of
work, weekly hours, length of service).
QU3c (asked if 2 applies): Please look at Showcard 2. Can you tell me

roughly how much your partner receives each week from this source?
(Check if this is before or after tax). Can you tell me about your partner’s
paid work? (Place of work, weekly hours, length of service).
QU3d (asked if 6,7, 8 or 9 apply): Please look at Showcard 2. Can you tell me
roughly how much your household receives each week from this source?
(Check if this is before or after tax). Can you tell me a little about that source
of income? (What is the source of the money? Who earns it/ gets it? How
much is this and how often does it come in? What happens to that money?).
QU4: Can you briefly describe how you organise your family finances?
(What money management system is used? Does the interviewee have
control of any wages they earn? Who receives Child Tax Credit/Child
Benefit? How does it fit into the family’s finances? How was that decided?).
QU5: Why do you do it that way? How did that come about?

3. Entitlement to money (seven minutes)
QU6: Are you able to do things as a family at all? Does that involve
expenditure?
(Who decides if and when you will do that? Who finds the money for
that? From where?).
QU7: Do you manage to do things as a couple sometimes?

(How often? What sort of things do you do? Who decides what to do?
Who pays for that? Is doing things as a couple important to you? And to
your partner?).
QU8: In what sort of ways do you spend money on yourself?

(How often are you able to do that? Does it mean spending any money?
Where does the money come from for that? How does it feel to spend
money on yourself?).
QU9: Do you have particular strategies to ensure you have some money
for your own needs?
QU10: Who has the main responsibility for making sure the children have
what they need?
(Who decides how much to spend on the children? Who ‘finds’ this
money? Do the children receive regular pocket money?).
4. Making ends meet (ten minutes)
QU11: Do you feel you have enough money to live comfortably most of
the time?
QU12: Where do you generally shop for food? Why?
QU13: Where do you generally shop for clothes? Why?
QU14: Sometimes people are not able to pay every bill when it falls due.
Are you up-to-date with all your bills at present, or are you behind with
any of them?
QU15: In the last year, have you used any kinds of credit or borrowed
money? (What for, source of credit?).
QU16: Do you ever find that there isn’t any money left at the end of the
week? How do you deal with that?
QU17: Do you ever have any money left over at the end of the week?
What do you do with it?
QU18: How much (if anything) do you save for your children’s future?
How does this affect your finances?

5. Division of labour when managing money (ten minutes)
QU19: Which of you would you say is more careful with money, you or
your partner?
(Can you give an example of this? How do you feel about being the
more/less careful one? Do you ever feel frustrated about the fact that you
have a different approach?).
QU20: Who would you say has the main responsibility for managing
money on a day-to-day basis? Why is that? And what would you say is
the other partner’s role?
QU21: Are there times when you consciously cut back on spending on
yourself?
(When? On what? Is the decision to do that something you’d talk to your
partner about?)
QU22: Do you ever feel the need to justify your spending to your partner?
Can you give me an example?
QU23: Does it ever seem to you that others in the family have a greater
claim on the money than you? Can you give me an example?
QU24: Do you worry about money generally? How does it make you feel?
QU25: Generally speaking, do you feel you have enough of a say in how
money is spent? Who has the final say – or does it depend? On what?
6. Extended family (five minutes)
QU26: Do you receive any financial support from your extended family,
grandparents etc?
QU27: Do you give any financial support to your extended family,

grandparents etc?
QU28: Do you regularly send money to family abroad or in this country?
QU29: Do you ever get any gifts of money, clothes or other items from
family members or friends who don’t live with you (including for
religious festivals and birthdays)?
QU30: Do you feel pressure to save for weddings and special occasions?
QU31: Does visiting family abroad put pressure on your finances?

7. Gender ideology (five minutes)
I am now going to read a series of controversial statements. For each one,

I’d like to ask for your personal views. I want to hear your views on each
one, rather than hear about what you actually do in your present situation.
QU32: Some people think that a man should go out to work full time
while a woman stays at home and looks after the children and the house.
What is your view?
QU33: Some people think women are much better at looking after family
finances than men. What is your view?
QU34: Some people think that it is a man’s role to provide the money for
the really important things, while any money the woman earns pays for
the ‘extras’ in life. What is your view?
QU35: Some people think that it is a mother’s fault if she can’t find the
money to provide all the things her children need. What is your view?
QU36: Some people think that when money is tight a mother should
sacrifice spending on herself in order to buy things for her children. What
is your view?
8. Material deprivation questions (seven minutes)
This next section is about the sorts of things that some families have, but
which many families have difficulty finding the money for.
For each of the following items, please tell me which answer from
Showcard 3 best describes whether you have it or not. In addition, any
extra information you tell me about the items will help me build up a
better picture of your circumstances (just a sentence or two for each item
would be very useful).
Adult deprivation questions
QU37a: Do you have a holiday away from home for at least one week a
year, whilst not staying with relatives at their home?
QU37b: Do you have friends or family around for a drink or meal at least
once a month?
QU37c: Do you have a small amount of money to spend each week on

yourself (not on your family)?
QU37d: Do you have a hobby or leisure activity? (What is it?).

QU37e: Do you have two pairs of all-weather shoes?
Household deprivation questions
QU38a: Does your family have enough money to keep your home in a
decent state of decoration?
QU38b: Does your family have household contents insurance?
QU38c: Does your family make regular savings of £10 a month or more for
rainy days or retirement?
QU38d: Does your family replace or repair major electrical goods such as a
refrigerator or a washing machine, when broken?
QU38e: In winter, are you able to keep your family home warm enough?
Child deprivation questions
QU39a: Does your child have/do your children have a family holiday
away from home for at least one week a year?
QU39b: Does your child have/do your children have leisure equipment
such as sports equipment or a bicycle?
QU39c: Does your child have/do your children have outdoor space or
facilities nearby to play safely?
QU39d: Does your child/do your children have a hobby or leisure

activity? (What is this?)
QU39e: Does your child/do your children have friends round for tea or a
snack once a fortnight?
8. Conclusion (three minutes)
QU40: What sort of things would help make things better for you
financially?
QU41: Are there any areas you feel we haven’t covered, or anything else
you’d like to say?

Oxfam Research Reports
Oxfam GB Research Reports are written to share research results, to contribute to public
debate and to invite feedback on development and humanitarian policy and practice.
They do not necessarily reflect Oxfam policy positions. The views expressed are those of
the author and not necessarily those of Oxfam GB.
For more information about the project, or about Oxfam’s work with women in England,
contact Sophie Fosker, Gender Programme Co-ordinator, sfosker@oxfam.org.uk
© Oxfam GB January 2011

The text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and
research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all
such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other
circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission
must be secured and a fee may be charged. E-mail publish@oxfam.org.uk
For further information on the issues raised in this paper please e-mail
enquiries@oxfam.org.uk or go to www.oxfam.org.uk.
The information in this publication is correct at the time of going to press.
Published by Oxfam GB under ISBN 978- 1-84814-779-9 in January 2011.
Oxfam GB, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY, UK.
Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC039042).
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International.

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty: The Financial Lives of Ethnic Minority Mothers in Tyne and Wear

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty: The Financial Lives of Ethnic Minority Mothers in Tyne and Wear

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Exploring BME

Chris Warburton Brown for Oxfam GB

About the Angelou Centre

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 3

4 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 5

1. High levels of material deprivation

6 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

2. Limited access to money

3. Negative impact of gender roles

4. Barriers to paid work

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 7

• Provide safe spaces for BME women to discuss financial issues.

• Involve BME fathers.

• Improve childcare for BME children.

• Raise awareness of benefits.

• Improve mothers’ access to benefits.

8 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

• Improve poverty measurements.

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 9

10 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

The general lack of understanding of mothers’ poverty in the UK is

Accurate evidence of the realities of BME mothers’ lives is needed in order

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 11

Oxfam’s maternal poverty project

12 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

Differences between ethnic groups

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 13

14 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

What we already know about BME women as a whole

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 15

What we already know about Bangladeshi women

16 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

What we already know about Pakistani women

What we already know about Black African women

What we already know about Indian women

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 17

What we already know about BME women in Newcastle upon

18 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 19

It is not being suggested that men in economically disadvantaged

20 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 21

22 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

What about the husbands?

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 23

In brief: Assessing household income

24 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 25

Anisa’s story: Barely managing

Linking household income and material deprivation

26 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011

Top 5 1.8 0.8 0.2 0.8

Second 5 7 2.8 1.6 2.4

Third 5 3 2 0.2 0.8

Fourth 5 6.6 2.8 2 1.8

Bottom 5 6.8 3.4 1.6 1.8

Whole 25 5 2.4 1.1 1.5

Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011 27

Interviewees who didn’t know their husband’s income

Akhtar’s story: Managing on her own

Differences between ethnic groups

28 Exploring BME Maternal Poverty, Oxfam GB Research Report, January 2011